M/S. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. v. M/S. Supreme Infrastructure (I) Ltd. Cin No. L74999mh1983plc029752

904.cp.484.2015.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 484 OF 2015 M/s. Saurashtra Cement Ltd.

.. Petitioner Vs.

Supreme Infrastructure India Limited .. Respondent Mr. Rajesh Maravoor i/b Maravoor Wamorkar and Co. for petitioner. Mr.Chetan Kapadia a/w. Mr. Rahul Sarda i/b Kanchanlata Gupta for respondent.

Mr.Pralhad Kulkarni-Authorized representative of petitioner present. Mr.Siddharth Jain, Account Legal/Authorized representative of respondent present.

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY 2018 P.C.

Parties have entered into consent terms dated 23rd February 2018. The consent terms signed by the authorized representative of petitioner, authorized representative of respondent and their respective advocates is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Shri Maravoor and Shri Kapadia state that respective signatories are present in Court and identify them. The statement of Shri Kapadia that the Managing Director of the company will come and endorse the consent terms by 27th February 2018 by signing each page is accepted. The statement of the authorized representative of the company Mr. Siddharth Jain for himself personally, on behalf of the company and on behalf of the Board of Directors and Mr. Jain Shraddha Talekar PS 1/2

904.cp.484.2015.doc states he has the authority to make this statement, that the company will honour each of the cheque on presentation, is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.

Shri Kapadia's clarification that though paragraph 7 of the consent terms mentions failure to pay any two installments on the due dates, it would equally apply if only the last installment is due, is accepted. If company commits any default in any two installments, as mentioned in paragraph 7, or commits default in the last installment, unless the default is condoned and time extended by Court, the company will stand wound up without further reference to the Court. Petition accordingly disposed as withdrawn since there are other petitions pending against the company.

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Shraddha Talekar PS 2/2