Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Ltd. v. Ing Deutschland Gmbh,

Sayyed 26-APP.146.2024.docx IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.146 OF 2024 APPEAL NO.146 OF 2024 IN IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2019 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2019 IN IN COMPANY PETITION NO.397 OF 2000 COMPANY PETITION NO.397 OF 2000 WITH WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3718 OF 2024 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3718 OF 2024 Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Royal Cushion Vinyl Products ...

...Appellant Appellant

Versus

Versus

ING Deutschland GmbH ING Deutschland GmbH ...

...Respondent

Respondent _____________________________________________________ Ms. Sakshi Jain i/by Jariwala Associates for the Appellant. Ms. Sakshi Jain i/by Jariwala Associates for the Appellant. Ms. Tanjul Sharma a/w Ms. Ms. Megha Sanghavi i/by M/s. Dhruve Ms. Tanjul Sharma a/w Ms. Ms. Megha Sanghavi i/by M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Respondent.

Liladhar & Co. for the Respondent.

_____________________________________________________ CORAM :

M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

DATED : 1 August 2025 PC.:- 1.

An adjournment is sought on behalf of learned counsel for the An adjournment is sought on behalf of learned counsel for the Appellant on the ground that the arguing counsel is not available. Appellant on the ground that the arguing counsel is not available. Ordinarily, this is not a ground on which, we adjourn the matter. Ordinarily, this is not a ground on which, we adjourn the matter. However, now it is 4:57 p.m. and, therefore, we post this appeal on 29 However, now it is 4:57 p.m. and, therefore, we post this appeal on 29 August 2025 on the assurance by the learned counsel for the Appellant August 2025 on the assurance by the learned counsel for the Appellant that no further adjournment will be applied for. Another reason why we that no further adjournment will be applied for.

Another reason why we are adjourning the matter is because there is no stay granted on the are adjourning the matter is because there is no stay granted on the restored proceeding and, therefore, on account of the pendency of this restored proceeding and, therefore, on account of the pendency of this proceeding, there would be no delay in proceeding with Company proceeding, there would be no delay in proceeding with Company Petition No.397 of 2000 which is now restored by the impugned order. Petition No.397 of 2000 which is now restored by the impugned order. 2.

The contention about maintainability of this appeal is kept The contention about maintainability of this appeal is kept expressly open.

expressly open.

(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.) Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/08/2025 12:18:34