Perfect Boring (P.) Ltd. VS Union Of India

The summary outlines a legal proceeding involving an application for an extension of time to furnish a bank guarantee, as directed by a previous court order. Here’s a breakdown:

1. The applicant is seeking to amend the relief clause, presumably to adjust the terms or conditions related to the bank guarantee.

2. Mr. Ankit Shah, acting as the learned Senior Standing Counsel, has waived the requirement for formal notice of the court rule on behalf of the respondents. This suggests an agreement or acknowledgment from the respondents’ side regarding the proceedings.

3. The main focus of the application is to extend the time period for furnishing the bank guarantee, as per an order dated 08.02.2019. The applicant is requesting a further extension of four months from the current date. The reasons for this extension are outlined in the memorandum of application, which likely includes explanations or justifications for the delay in furnishing the bank guarantee.

In essence, the summary encapsulates a legal process where the applicant seeks more time to comply with a previous court order regarding the provision of a bank guarantee, with the agreement or acknowledgment of the respondents’ counsel.

The court proceedings involve an application seeking an extension of the time period for furnishing a bank guarantee, as directed by a previous court order. The applicant requests a further four-month extension from the current date, citing reasons outlined in the application memorandum.

During the proceedings, Mr. Zubin Bharda, representing the applicant, and Mr. Ankit Shah, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, presented their arguments. The court had previously ordered the applicant to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.55,00,000 to the respondent within one month from a specific date, along with an undertaking to pay the balance amount in equal monthly installments over eight months.

Mr. Bharda explained that the applicant had already made three installments but couldn’t pay the fourth due to their bank account being attached by the respondent authorities. This attachment was a result of the applicant’s failure to furnish the bank guarantee within the stipulated time frame set by the court. Mr. Bharda argued that given the financial condition of the applicant, meeting the original deadline was not feasible. However, he emphasized that the applicant hadn’t defaulted on any installment payments except for the current month, which was affected by the bank account attachment.

The summary of the legal proceedings is as follows:

The court session begins with a request for amendment to the relief clause. Mr. Ankit Shah, representing the respondents, waives the service of notice of rule. The applicant seeks an extension of the time period to furnish a bank guarantee, as directed in a previous court order dated 08.02.2019, for an additional four months. Mr. Zubin Bharda, representing the applicant, presents the case, stating that while the first three installments have been paid, the fourth installment could not be paid due to the attachment of the applicant’s bank account by the respondent authorities, as the bank guarantee was not furnished within the specified time. Mr. Bharda argues that the financial condition of the applicant made it impossible to furnish the bank guarantee within the stipulated time. He requests an extension of four months for furnishing the bank guarantee, with the condition that if the applicant defaults on future installments, the respondent may attach the bank account. Mr. Shah, for the respondents, does not dispute that the first three installments were paid on time but argues that sufficient time has already been granted to the applicant.

Considering the facts presented, with an amount of Rs. 55,00,000 due and three installments already paid, and the inability to pay the fourth installment due to the attachment of the applicant’s bank account, the court deems the applicant’s request for an extension of the period to furnish the bank guarantee as reasonable.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: