Gujarat High Court High Court

O vs Gujarat on 5 May, 2011

Gujarat High Court
O vs Gujarat on 5 May, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

OLR/113/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

OFFICIAL
LIQUDATOR REPORT No. 113 of 2010
 

======================================
 

O
L OF KANORIA DYE CHEM LTD (IN LIQN) - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

GUJARAT
STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & 6 - Respondent(s)
 

======================================
 
Appearance : 
MR.HIREN
M MODI for Applicant 
MR BH BHAGAT for Respondent(s) : 2, 
MR
HARSHAD J SHAH for Respondent(s) : 6, 
MR MB GANDHI for
Respondent(s) : 7, 
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI for Respondent(s) :
7, 
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 05/05/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

Heard
the learned advocates for the parties.

Mr.

M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate for the GIDC, would contend that, so
far as Plot Nos. 6101/1, 6101/2, and 6101/A are concerned, the GIDC
has clear title over the land in view of the licence agreement
entered into between the GIDC and the Company.

Shri
Hiren Modi, the learned advocate for the Official Liquidator would
contend that, by order dated 9.8.2002 passed by the learned Company
Judge, provisional liquidator was appointed and the company was
ordered to be wound up on 25.10.2004 and, thereafter, in view of the
subsequent orders passed and pursuant to the advertisement published
in the newspapers to sell the subject property in question, the sale
is to be undertaken by this Court.

The
issue about the claim of the GIDC needs to be addressed first before
proceeding ahead with the auction as ordered.

Mr.

B.T. Rao, learned advocate for offerer-Venus Infrastructure seeks
permission to withdraw the EMD in view of the time taken during the
proceedings. Permission as prayed for is granted. It would be open
to Venus Infrastructure to withdraw the amount of EMD, which may be
returned by the Official Liquidator within two weeks of request in
writing.

It
is made clear that, so far as other offerers are concerned, if they
desire to continue with the procedure of auction to be held after
Summer Vacation, they may continue with the EMD or in the alternative
they may also withdraw the EMD.

S.O.

To 22.6.2011.

(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)

(swamy)

   

Top