2021 (10) TMI 157 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking further time for payment of the first installment - petitioner states that he has instructions to withdraw the present application - HELD THAT - The Court is surprised with this kind of instruction being given by the petitioner to its advocate. It creates a doubt whether petitioner intends to honour its commitments in terms of order dated 1st September, 2021. Be that as it may, the counsel for the respondent would have remedies in law, in case the payments in terms of the order dated 1st September, 2021 are not made. Both the applications are dismissed with costs of ₹ 10,000 each.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for extension of time for payment of the first installment due.
2. Withdrawal of the application by the petitioner.
3. Imposition of costs on the dismissed applications.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to two petitions where the petitioners sought an extension of time for payment of the first installment due as per the order dated 1st September, 2021. The petitioners requested the time for making the payment be extended from 4th September, 2021 to 15th September, 2021. The court indicated that the extension would be subject to the petitioner company's Directors filing an affidavit committing to making not only the first installment but all future payments as directed in the order dated 1st September, 2021 within the specified timelines.

2. The counsel for the petitioner initially sought a passover to obtain instructions from the client regarding the application. Subsequently, the counsel informed the court that the petitioner had instructed to withdraw the application seeking an extension. The court expressed surprise at this decision, raising doubts about the petitioner's intention to fulfill its commitments as per the earlier order. The judgment highlighted the potential legal remedies available to the respondent's counsel in case the payments directed by the order dated 1st September, 2021 were not made by the petitioner.

3. In response to the withdrawal of the applications by the petitioners, the court dismissed both applications and imposed costs of ?10,000 each. The judgment concluded by highlighting the dismissal of the applications seeking an extension of time for payment of the first installment, emphasizing the importance of honoring commitments made in previous court orders and the consequences of failing to do so.