Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/16543/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16543 of 2010
=================================================
SUGAM
COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD & 8 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - THROUGH DEPUTY SECRETARY (APPEALS) & 2 -
Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SHIRISH JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 9.
Ms.MANISHA NARSINGHANI,
ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 27/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Leave
to amend.
2. Heard
learned advocate Mr.Shirish Joshi for the petitioners. The learned
advocate invited attention of the Court to the order passed by this
Court (Coram: D.N. Patel, J.) dated 29.11.2005 in Special Civil
Application No.16327 of 2005, a copy of which is produced at pages 55
and 56. Paras 2 and 3 of the said order read as under:
“2. The
learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi, appearing with Mr.
R.M.Chhaya, Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has already stated in her reply before Board of Nominees that the
apprehension on the part of the respondent no.1 society (original
plaintiff) was uncalled for and unwarranted. In fact, the
apprehension on the part of the respondent no.1 (original plaintiff)
was thoroughly baseless. Never the petitioner (original defendant)
ever thought of transfer of the premises in question without
permission of the respondent no.1
society (original plaintiff). Nonetheless, the learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that as and when the
petitioner will think of transfer of the property in question,
inducting anybody else in the premises or putting the property to
commercial use, she will obtain necessary permission of the
respondent society and therefore, the orders passed by the Board of
Nominees as well as by the Gujarat State
Co-operative Tribunal deserve to be quashed and set aside which
imposes absolute ban upon the petitioner for transfer of the premises
in question.
3. I
have heard the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 society who
has submitted that if the petitioner is surrendering to the authority
of the respondent society for taking prior permission before transfer
of the premises in question or otherwise, inducting anybody else in
the premises in question or putting the property to commercial use,
the respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) has no much objection even
in withdrawing Lavad case no.1511 of 2003 pending before Board of
Nominees, Surat, especially in view of the facts stated by the
petitioner in para-8 of the written statement in Lavad suit no. 1511
of 2003.”
3. The
learned advocate then invited attention of the Court to Annexure ‘I’,
pages 67 and 68 thereof, wherein the District Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Surat has passed order dated 22.02.2008 to issue duplicate
share certificates No.226 to 230 to Shri Hasmukhbhai N. Vakil without
any charges and give him NOC. Besides, the District Registrar has
also issued a direction directing the petitioner-society to issue NOC
to one Smt.Snehlataben Jagdishbai. The learned advocate for the
petitioners submitted that said Smt.Snehlata J. Raval was the
petitioner in Special Civil Application No.16327 of 2005. The very
party has agreed before this Court that she is surrendering to the
authority of the respondent-society for taking prior permission
before transfer of the premises in question or otherwise, inducting
anybody else in the premises in question or putting the property to
commercial use.
4. Despite
that this direction is given.
The
learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that if the society
does not carry out this direction in a time frame it is the District
Registrar who can issue NOC on behalf of the society and can also
issue duplicate share certificates. The learned advocate for the
petitioners submitted that Shri Hasmukhbhai Vakil has not filed any
affidavit disclosing as to what has happened to the original share
certificates. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted
that in absence of any such affidavit disclosing about the original
share certificates there is no reason for the District Registrar to
issue duplicate share certificates.
5. The
learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the direction to
issue NOC to Smt.Snehalataben J. Raval is running into the face of
the order passed by this Court wherein this Court has recorded that
Smt.Snehalataben J. Raval has submitted to the authority of
respondent-soceity as recorded hereinabove.
6. The
matter requires consideration. RULE. NOTICE
as to interim relief returnable on 24th January 2001. Ad
interim relief in terms of para 23(B). Direct service is permitted.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top