PRIME COTTEX PVT. LTD. Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

(2.) The present appeal filed under Sec. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 10/5/2024 passed in Commercial Civil Suit No. 10 of 2018, rejecting the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking for injunction restraining the defendants, its servants, its workers, representatives, etc. from enforcing the corporate guarantee on the premise that the same has already been discharged against the plaintiff.

(3.) The explanation of the delay of 199 days in filing the instant appeal is to the effect that pursuant to the judgment and order dtd. 10/5/2024, the authorised representative of the appellant in suit, namely the ex- director of the appellant was contacted by the advocate appearing for the appellant on or around 15/5/2024. The Ex-Director who was pursuing the matter between 30/9/2015 to 1/5/2017 had informed the advocate that he was a share holder and was not involved in the day to day affairs of the company and further that he had sold his shareholding about a year back though in effect, his name was appearing in the official record. He also conveyed that he would inform the concerned person to get in touch with the learned advocate regarding the said development and hence, no further steps could be taken for challenging the judgment and order dtd. 10/5/2024.