Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7789/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7789 of 2009
=========================================
SURENDRASINH
S JADEJA
Versus
KEROKEN
CO LTD & 10
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR CL SONI for
Petitioner
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,5 - 6.
MR
DEVAN PARIKH for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR BD KARIA for Respondent(s)
: 2 - 5, 7,
NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 8,
None for
Respondent(s) : 9 - 11.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 28/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
Mr.C. L. Soni, learned advocate for the petitioner.
When
the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.Devan Parikh, learned
advocate for the respondent No.1 is not present. Mr.B. D. Karia,
learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 7 is present.
Mr.C.
L. Soni, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
petition is directed against the order dated 30th June,
2009 passed by the learned trial Court granting conditional leave to
defend.
Mr.C.
L. Soni, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is one of the Directors, who was working as such with the
respondent No.1 – Company. The dispute in the Summary Suit
which was filed by the supplier of the goods to the Company is about
recovery of the alleged dues of the said supplier to be recovered
from the respondent No.1 – Company and the petitioner has been
implicated in the suit in his capacity as one of the Directors of
the said Company.
He
has further submitted that the petitioner had, even before the
transaction was entered into, resigned as a Director of the Company
and, therefore, in the first instance he ought not to have been
joined as / made party to the proceedings, alternatively any claim
against the Director would not lie when such transaction was entered
into by the Company and that too when he has resigned as a Director.
Having
made such application for leave to defend,, the learned advocate for
the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has raised triable
issues and, therefore, unconditional leave to defend ought to be
granted. However, the learned trial Court has granted conditional
leave to defend and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.80,000/-.
The petitioner, upon being aggrieved by the said order, has
preferred the present petition.
The
contentions raised by the petitioner, particularly that as a
Director, he had resigned before the disputed transaction entered
into, deserves consideration. Hence RULE.
Ad-interim relief granted
earlier by this Court [Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Bankim N. Mehta]
on 29th
July, 2009 to continue till further orders. Since the present order
is passed in absence of the learned advocate for the respondent
No.1, it would be open for the respondent No.1 to move appropriate
application to modify or vacate the interim or ad-interim relief.
[
K. M. THAKER, J. ]
vijay
Top