Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
O/COMA/338/2011
ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY
APPLICATION No 338 of 2011
IN
COMPANY
APPLICATION No.223 of 2011
IN
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR REPORT No.219 of 2007
IN
COMPANY
PETITION No.205 of 1996
================================================================
KALANTRY
TEXTILE CONSULTANTS....Applicant(s)
Versus
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR OF M/S SAHAYOG MILLS & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR
PAVAN S GODIAWALA as ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR
MG NAGARKAR as ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 01/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule. Learned advocate
Mr. J.S.Yadav waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1.
Learned advocate Mr. M.G.Nagarkar waives service of Rule on behalf of
respondent No.2.
2. The present application
by way of Judges Summons, is preferred for extension of time for the
purpose of demolition/dismantling/removal of the assets purchased by
the applicant of the property under liquidation. This Court on
28.2.2011 passed the following order:-
1. RULE. Learned Advocate
Mr. J.S. Yadav waives service of RULE for respondent No.1-Official
Liquidator and learned Advocate Mr. M.G. Nagarkar waives for
respondent No.2.
2. This is an application
praying for extension of time for completion of demolition /
dismantling work removal of the assets purchased by the
applicant. Vide order dated 16.04.2010 four months time was granted
for the same on the condition that the applicant shall deposit / pay
an amount of Rs.20,000/= per month for the delayed period.
Thereafter, once again the applicant prayed for extension of time and
the Court passed the following order on 27.12.2010. The same is
reproduced as under :-
1. Without going into any
details of who is responsible for delay in removing superstructure,
machinery and debris, petitioner is granted extension upto 28th
February, 2011 to clear all the items purchased through Court
auction. Petitioner shall continue to pay charges @ Rs.50,000/- per
month as required by previous order passed by this Court.
2. Learned Counsel for the
respondents points out that more than sufficient opportunities have
already been granted to the applicant. I am prima-facie in agreement
with such contention. This extension is, however, granted only in
larger interest of justice and it is clarified that petitioner should
not expect any further extension.
3. Application is disposed
of accordingly.
3. Learned Advocate Mr.
Pranav G. Desai for the applicant submits that on account of genuine
reasons and other problems, the work could not be completed and
therefore as a last opportunity, time may be extended by a further
period of four months. There is no objection at the end of Mr.
Nagarkar appearing for respondent No.2 except the fact that according
to him the period of four months is too long and the same may be
reduced to three months. The same request has been reiterated by Mr.
Yadav.
4. I have heard Mr. Nagarkar
for respondent No.2 and Mr. Yadav for the official Liquidator
respondent No.1.
5. In the facts and
circumstances of the case and having regard to what has been stated
in the application, I deem it just and proper to grant three months
time period to the applicant for completion of demolition /
dismantling and removal of the assets purchased by the applicant.
Applicant is granted extension upto 31ST
MAY, 2011 to clear all the items purchased through court auction.
The applicant shall continue to pay charges at the rate of
Rs.20,000/- per month as required by previous order passed by this
Court. It is clarified that this extension is for the last time in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. There shall be no
further extension on any grounds.
6 With the aforesaid
directions, this Company Application is disposed of accordingly.
Rule is made absolute.
2. It is very evident from
the order dated 28.2.2011 that the extension was for the last time.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, however, it
appears that even by 31.5.2011 the applicant failed to remove and
dismantle the entire structure which includes plant and machinery
standing on the land and is now once again before the Court praying
for further extension.
3. This application has been
vehemently opposed by Mr. Yadav appearing for the Official Liquidator
and Mr. Nagarkar appearing for the GIDC. Both the learned counsel
appearing for the Official Liquidator and GIDC submitted that
because of negligence on the part of the applicant in not removing
and dismantling structure they are not able to use the land. Learned
advocate Mr. Godiawala appearing for the applicant submits that in
spite of the best of the efforts put in to see that the entire
structure is removed and dismantled, still some portion of it remains
to be removed and they are trying their best to see that it is
removed as early as possible so that the possession can be taken over
by the Official Liquidator.
4. I have taken serious note
of the fact that in spite of clarifying in the last order that it
would be the last extension, still the present application has been
preferred. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to give one another chance to the applicant but this time
subject to certain terms and conditions, which are as under:-
1) The applicant shall file
an undertaking on oath before this Court within a period of 4 days
from today that he will remove/dismantle the entire structure
standing as on today on the land on or before 9.7. 2011 and shall
hand over the possession to the Official Liquidator on 10.7.2011.
2) The applicant should also
undertake that if he fails to remove the structure within the
stipulated period i.e. 9.7.2011, then he shall hand over the vacant
possession of the entire land to the Official Liquidator as it is in
the same condition existing on that day without raising any dispute
of any nature.
3) It is also clarified that
it will also be open for the Official Liquidator and the GIDC
together to take over the possession of the land on 10.7.2011 from
the applicant.
5. In the last order it was
observed that the applicant shall continue to pay charges at the rate
of Rs.50,000/- per month as required by previous order passed of this
Court. For the present month, the applicant shall now pay
Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the Official Liquidator on the date when
the possession is handed over to the applicant i.e. 9.7.2011. He will
deposit Rs.1,39,000/- with the Official Liquidator.
6. With the aforesaid
observations, this Company Application is disposed of accordingly.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(J.
B. PARDIWALA, J.)
sudhir
Page
5 of 5
Top