ICICI LIMITED KOLKATTA Vs. MS PARAKRAM TECHNOFAB LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is very strange that vide order dt.02/12/2002, company petition was admitted and notices were ordered to be issued returnable on 28/02/2003 - pursuant to which, requisite PF & notices etc. were filed in the Registry way back on 09/12/2002, but despite notices being filed, they were not issued and that apart, the case was not listed before the Court thereafter and after almost eight years, file could be traced and has been placed before the Court with the report that 28/02/2003 was the court date fixed and PF & notices are lying in the file but not issued by previous clerk concerned.

(2.) It appears that explanation was called for from clerk who remained posted in between February, 2008 to June, 2009.

(3.) Deputy Registrar (Judl.) is directed to inquire upon as to why notices could not be issued by clerk concerned who remained posted during relevant period from December, 2002 till February, 2008 while PF & notices were filed way back on 09/12/2002 and lying in the file and why could not be issued/dispatched till date. List after four weeks alongwith report as directed (supra). In the meanwhile, notices be issued afresh.