IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL FROM ORDER No 596 of 1997
with
CIVIL APPLICATION No 11407 of 1997
For Approval and Signature:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO
Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?
————————————————————–
RITABEN UDAYAN SHAH
Versus
BHARAT PIPES & FITTINGS LTD.
————————————————————–
Appearance:
1. Appeal from Order No. 596 of 1997
MR DJ BHATT for Appellant No.
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 1-2
SERVED BY RPAD – (R) for Respondent No. 3
————————————————————–
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI
Date of decision: 01/02/2005
ORAL JUDGEMENT
1.The appellant has preferred this appeal from
order being aggrieved by the order dated 15/07/1997
passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad in
application below exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.75 of
1996, whereby the said application was rejected.
2.Though served none appears for the respondents.
On 17/01/1998, this Court had passed the following order;
“The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the bank guarantee was furnished
by the appellant in favour of the respondent no.1
Company. The respondent no.2 being the Executive
Director of the Company, is trying to get the
money of the aforesaid bank guarantee.
Proceedings for winding up of the Company have
already been started and Official Liquidator has
already been appointed. At the most, the bank
guarantee may go to the Official Liquidator where
he can file objection regarding bank guarantee.
In case, the bank guarantee is encashed by the
opponent no.2, she will be in great difficulty to
recover the same.
Notice was issued to the respondents.
Respondent no.2 has refused to accept the same.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
respondents are directed to maintain status quo
as regards payment of bank guarantee if it has
not already been encashed. Direct service is
permitted.”
3.In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, it would be appropriate if the trial Court is
directed to expedite the hearing of the suit in question
while directing the parties to maintain the arrangement
as was directed by this Court by the aforesaid order.
4.Accordingly, parties are directed to abide by the
directions issued by this Court by order dated 17/01/1998
referred to hereinabove, till the suit pending before the
trial Court is disposed of finally. The trial Court is
directed to expedite the hearing of the suit being
Special Civil Suit No.75 of 1996 and to dispose it of as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period
of One Year from the date of receipt of writ of this
order. With the above directions, this appeal from order
stands disposed of.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION
In view of the order passed in the appeal from
order, no orders are necessary in this civil application.
It stands disposed of accordingly.
(K. S. Jhaveri, J.)
pravin/