Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/374/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 374 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 15521 of 2010
In
APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 374 of 2010
=========================================================
MANUBHAI
PARSOTTAMDAS PATEL - Appellant(s)
Versus
NATIONAL
TEXTILE CORPORATION & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AJ SHASTRI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 08/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of filing this appeal from order, the appellant has challenged
the order dated 27.9.2010, passed by learned Auxiliary, Chambers
Judge, Court NO.16, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 2811 of 2009,
whereby the learned judged has dismissed the notice of motion.
2. Heard
the learned Counsel for the appellant. The Trial Court while
considering the application below Exhibits 7/8 and 35/36 has
considered the evidence as well as the documents on record and mainly
in paragraph No. 8, the Court has observed as under:-
…..”Thus,the
provisions of the Act empowers and stands vested all the properties
including lease hold rights in the central Government and Central
Government steps into the shoes of the sick unit and it has all
rights to transfer lease hold rights. Accordingly, BIFR has framed a
scheme and as per the scheme the property in dispute – the
lease hold rights were to be sold. For that purpose, the
advertisement was also issued to which it appears that the plaintiff,
knowing fully well, has not objected. The tender document for sale of
permanent lease hold rights are also produced on record wherein the
sealed offers were invited for sale of permanent lease hold rights in
the land belonging to Ahmedabad Jupiter Textile Mills on “as is
where is and As is what basis” in compliance of rehabilitation
scheme of the compnay sanctioned by the BIFR. Accordingly, the
defendant No.4 has given his offer and ultimately the same has been
accepted. Therefore, now the plaintiff cannot claim any injunction
against the transfer of the property as only lease hold rights has
been transferred to the defendant No.4 on the terms of the lease
deed, which is perpetual and permanent lease and no any right to
re-entry in the land has been proved to the land owners….”
3. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner is not able to point out anything from
the record to take a different view of the matter. In view of this, I
am complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial Court,
the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
4.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has requested to
direct the Trial Court to expedite the suit. The Trial Court is
directed that if an application is filed by the present petitioners
to expedite suit, the trial Court shall expedite the suit.
5. With
the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated.
6. In
view of the order passed in the main matter, the Civil Application
would not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.)
pawan
Top