Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5154/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5154 of 2008
==========================================
APCO
INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS
Versus
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS
==========================================
Appearance
:
MR VM PANCHOLI for
Petitioners:1-3
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent:1
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent:2
MR AS ASTHAVADI for
Respondent:3
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 22/08/2008
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr.V.M.Pancholi,
learned Advocate for the petitioners.
The
learned Advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the
Court to the order dated 22nd October, 2007 passed by
this Court (Coram:Hon’ble Mr.Justice Anant S. Dave). The relevant
para-5 reads as under:-
?SHaving heard learned
counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, the case of the petitioner is referred to the High Power
Committee, which is yet not started functioning and as and when the
High Power Committee starts functioning, the case of the petitioner
shall be considered in accordance with law. Till
then, the registration of the petitioner-unit as sick unit shall
remain in force.??
Mr.Ashthavadi,
learned Advocate for respondent No.3 invited the attention of the
Court to the Annexure-D, Page-35 of the petition. He submitted that
so far as principal amount i.e. Rs.1,64,61,980/- is concerned, there
is no dispute. The dispute, if any, is only qua funded interest of
Rs.1,54,89,055/-. He submitted that, therefore, the petitioner ought
to have complied with the scheme and should have deposited 10% of
principal amount as contemplated under the scheme. He submitted that
as the petitioner did not do so the Industries Commissioner issued a
list of the GBIFR registered cases Annexure-B to the reply wherein
the name of the petitioner company is at Serial No.2 and remark says
?SSick Unit, Registration is granted, but no relief is granted,
as there is no scheme.??
The
GSFC therefore thought it fit to proceed against the guarantors.
Mr.Pancholi,
learned Advocate for petitioner submitted that aforesaid statement
is showing the position as on 30th September, 2007. He
submitted that the scheme which is referred to by the petitioner is
continued thereafter as is reflected from Page-56 i.e. by Government
Resolution dated 14th March, 2008.
Taking
into consideration the peculiar facts of the case, it is deemed fit
that the petitioner be permitted to deposit the 10% amount on the
basis of the principal amount keeping the grievance open so far as
funded interest is concerned. The petitioner to report the
compliance on 1st September, 2008.
At
the request of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it is
clarified that amount paid by the petitioner under this order will
be without prejudice to his rights and contentions raised in the
petition.
(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)
Amit/-
Top