Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
COMA/223/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 223 of 2011
In
OFFICIAL
LIQUDATOR REPORT No. 219 of 2007
In
COMPANY PETITION No. 205 of
1996
=========================================================
KALANTRY
TEXTILE CONSULTANTS - Applicant(s)
Versus
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR OF M/S SAHAYOG MILLS & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PRANAV G DESAI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
MG NAGARKAR for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 28/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
RULE.
Learned Advocate Mr. J.S. Yadav waives service of RULE for
respondent No.1-Official Liquidator and learned Advocate Mr. M.G.
Nagarkar waives for respondent No.2.
This
is an application praying for extension of time for completion of
demolition / dismantling work removal of the assets purchased by
the applicant. Vide order dated 16.04.2010 four months time was
granted for the same on the condition that the applicant shall
deposit / pay an amount of Rs.20,000/= per month for the delayed
period. Thereafter, once again the applicant prayed for extension
of time and the Court passed the following order on 27.12.2010. The
same is reproduced as under :-
1.
Without going into any details of who is responsible for delay in
removing superstructure, machinery and debris, petitioner is granted
extension upto 28th February, 2011 to clear all the items
purchased through Court auction. Petitioner shall continue to pay
charges @ Rs.50,000/- per month as required by previous order passed
by this Court.
2.
Learned Counsel for the respondents points out that more than
sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the applicant.
I am prima-facie in agreement with such contention. This extension
is, however, granted only in larger interest of justice and it is
clarified that petitioner should not expect any further extension.
3.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
Learned
Advocate Mr. Pranav G. Desai for the applicant submits that on
account of genuine reasons and other problems, the work could not be
completed and therefore as a last opportunity, time may be extended
by a further period of four months. There is no objection at the
end of Mr. Nagarkar appearing for respondent No.2 except the fact
that according to him the period of four months is too long and the
same may be reduced to three months. The same request has been
reiterated by Mr. Yadav.
I
have heard Mr. Nagarkar for respondent No.2 and Mr. Yadav for the
official Liquidator respondent No.1.
In
the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to what
has been stated in the application, I deem it just and proper to
grant three months time period to the applicant for completion of
demolition / dismantling and removal of the assets purchased by the
applicant. Applicant is granted extension upto 31ST
MAY, 2011 to clear all the items purchased through court
auction. The applicant shall continue to pay charges at the rate of
Rs.20,000/- per month as required by previous order passed by this
Court. It is clarified that this extension is for the last time in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. There shall be no
further extension on any grounds.
With
the aforesaid directions, this Company Application is disposed of
accordingly. Rule is made absolute.
Sd/-
(J.B.
Pardiwala, J.)
Caroline
Top