AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi
It is really painful that, an unhealthy tendency has increased, on the part of the litigants, to which the present appellant is not an exception, who was respondent in Company Petition No. 186 of 2010 wherein, the learned Company Judge by a very well considered Order, running into 36 pages, came to the conclusion that, the respondent is liable to deposit an amount of US$ 1,30,425/- or its equivalent INR with the Registry of this Court. The learned Company Judge was pleased to grant indulgence of granting time on 15.11.2011 to enable the respondent to deposit this amount. The learned Company Judge differed in passing of any further Order till the next date of hearing i.e. 29-12-2011.
The present appellant - respondent approached the learned Company Judge by filing speaking to minutes, a copy of which was served to the other side on 09.01.2012. The said speaking to minutes was disposed of by the learned Company Judge with a remark that, ''a proper application be filed''.
The appellant - original respondent filed OJ Civil Application No. 19 of 2012 which came to be disposed of by Order dated 09.03.2012.
While considering the said application, the learned Company Judge observed that, the time prayed for, stands already acquired/obtained by the respondent and hence, the relief prayed for in application cannot be granted.
Thereafter, the present appeal filed on 21.02.2012, was taken up for hearing. The conduct of the litigants like the present appellant - original respondents, is required to be deprecated who are able to grant relief to oneself in the manner that, they without there being any order of extension of time or stay by the appellate forum enjoy stay.
The Order dated 14-15 of November, 2011 which granted time to the respondent - appellant herein to deposit the amount on or before 28.12.2011 is yet not complied with.
On 17.09.2012, this Court granted time to the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant to take instructions in the matter. What was expected was that, the appellant - respondent will deposit that amount so as to see that the Order stands complied.
After two weeks, the learned Advocate for the appellant - original respondent on instructions of his client submitted that, if the amount ordered to be deposited could be reduced and time is granted to deposit the same. Only on the ground that, the appellant has granted ''stay'' to himself, this request cannot be entertained.
The appeal is not entertained on the ground that, the appellant has not complied with direction of learned Company Judge. The same is dismissed.