PADMA NAGPAL Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appeared for the respondent on the last date. On 15.1.2007 learned counsel for the respondent stated (that matter was being settled.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has)shown to me a letter dated 5.6.2006 addressed by the respondent to M/s. Padmini Technology Ltd.

(3.) PETITIONERS claim to be housewives. According to the petitioners, Vivek Nagpal husband of the second petitioner and son of the first petitioner was the over all incharge of Padmini Technologies Ltd. Petitioners seek quashing of the summoning order dated 16.4.2002 inter alia alleging that the complaint assigns no role to the petitioners save and except making a bald state ment that petitioners are the directors of Padmini Technologies Ltd.