Gujarat High Court High Court

Board vs Nandesari on 17 November, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Board vs Nandesari on 17 November, 2011
Author: K.M.Thaker,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

COMP/199/2007	 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

COMPANY
PETITION No. 199 of
2007 
 
=================================================
 

BOARD
FOR INDUSTRIAL & FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

NANDESARI
RASAYANEE LTD. & 6 - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
BOARD
OPINION for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1, 5, 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 2, 5, 
NOTICE NOT
RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 2, 
NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s)
: 3,6 - 7. 
MR RUTVIJ M BHATT for Respondent(s) : 4, 
MR PRANAV G
DESAI for Respondent(s) :
7, 
=================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

Date
: 17/11/2011  
ORAL ORDER

Learned
advocate Mr. R.M.Bhatt has submitted that in pursuance of the order
passed by the Court, notice to the respondents were issued. He
further submitted that, as per the record, particularly the report
filed by the Board, the respondent No.4 is GIIC, however,
inadvertently, the registry has issued notice to GIDC considering it,
i.e. GIDC, as respondent No.4. He, therefore, submitted that notice
to respondent No.4, i.e. GIIC, is required to be issued since GIIC is
respondent No.4 and not GIDC.

Mr.

Bhatt has further clarified that though GIIC does have a claim to
press into service, its name is not mentioned in the report. He
submitted that in the facts of the case, GIIC is required to be
impleaded as party, however, since that can be done only on
appropriate application by GIIC, GIIC proposes to file appropriate
separate application requesting that it may be impleaded as party
opponent in the proceedings.

Having
regard to the aforesaid request and clarification made by learned
advocate Mr. Bhatt, the registry is directed to issue notice to
the GIIC as respondent No.4.

Notice to be made returnable on 16.12.2011.

The registry
is also directed to delete the name of Mr. R.M.Bhatt as advocate for
the respondent No.4 since he is not appearing as advocate for GIIC.

[K.M.Thaker,
J.]

kdc

   

Top