9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner has been present from 10.06.2008 onwards, on various dates till 29.01.2018. In the meantime, steps were initiated by the respondent for splitting of the complaint qua the company and the Directors. As a result was continued in the name of the company and one Director and as against the petitioner and another Director. Thus, through all this, the petitioner has certainly been aware of the factum of order having been passed and this is the question that this Court has to contend with, as to whether such prolonged inaction on the part of the petitioner to even seek a copy of the order and then initiate appropriate steps, may be condoned. The response, in my considered view, must be in the negative, for the reason that there is no ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter to the appropriate Head of Account. 3. The substratum of the case of the petitioner is that the order of adjudication dated 31.12.2001 has never been served upon it. To be noted, the present writ petition is of the year 2016 and thus the question that would arise for determination is as to what had transpired in the interim and whether the elapse of fifteen years from date of order to date of institution of the writ petition was justifiable. 4. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition proceeds on the basis that no order was ever served upon the petitioner. To this extent, the petitioner may or may not be right since the respondents are not in a position to produce the records to establish service of the order up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal Court have also been produced to show that the petitioner has been present from 10.06.2008 onwards, on various dates till 29.01.2018. In the meantime, steps were initiated by the respondent for splitting of the complaint qua the company and the Directors. As a result, C.C.No.407 of 2002 was continued in the name of the company and one Director and E.O.C.C.No.75 of 2008, as against the petitioner and another Director. 8. Thus, through all this, the petitioner has certainly been aware of the factum of order dated 31.12.2008 having been passed and this is the question that this Court has to contend with, as to whether such prolonged inaction on the part of the petitioner to even seek a copy of the order and then initiate appropriate st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
