Patna High CourtCOMP PET/24/2004dismissed

Deepak Electronics India Pli v. The Bihar State Credit And Inves

2016-04-07Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Company Petition No.24 of 2004 ====================================================== Deepak Electronics India (P) Limited, Fardogola, Bhagwanpur Chatti, Rewa Road, Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd., Indira Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

2. The Central Bank of India Main Branch, Saraiyaganj, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : None.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2016 When this matter was taken up on 17.03.2016, this Court had passed the following orders:

"Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioner, though the name of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is printed in the daily cause list. From perusal of the order dated 06.08.2010 it appears that Mr.Amit Srivastava appears on behalf of the respondent The Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (respondent no.1). However, his name is not printed in the daily cause list.

Office is directed to ensure that his name is printed in the daily cause list.

The matter is simply passed over for the day. However, if none appears on the next date, the Court shall be constrained to pass an appropriate order." Today, the matter is listed under the heading "For Admission".

When the matter is called out, none appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this Company Petition. None appears on behalf of the respondents either, though names of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are printed in the daily cause list.

Patna High Court COM PET No.24 of 2004 (9) dt.07-04-2016 2/2 In above view of the matter, this Court is left with no option, but to dismiss the present Company Petition for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the present Company Petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Tahir/- U