Gujarat High Court High Court

Appearance : vs Mr Pavan S Godiawala For on 21 June, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Appearance : vs Mr Pavan S Godiawala For on 21 June, 2011
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/12400/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12400 of 2010
 

With


 

SECOND
APPEAL No. 5 of 2009
 

 
=================================================


 

KOTAK
MAHINDRA BANK LTD 

 

Versus
 

MANAGING
DIRECTOR 

 

M/S
BALRAM CEMENTS LTD & OTHERS
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
 NAVIN K PAHWA for the Petitioner  
MR PAVAN S GODIAWALA for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2,4 -
6. 
None for Respondent(s) : 3,7 -
8. 
================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
		
	

 

Date
: 21/06/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

Heard
in part.

It
is brought to our notice that during the pendency of the case, in
Reference Case No.52 of 1994, pending before the Board for Industrial
and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), BIFR has passed an order dated
31st December 2010
holding that the petitioner – Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited is
not holding 75% or more secured debt of the company and therefore
their prayer for abatement of the Company’s Reference has been
rejected and Misc. Application No.67 has been disposed of.

In
the present writ petition as the same issue has been raised as to
whether Reference Case No.52 of 1994 stands abated in view of the
third proviso to subsection (1) of Section 15 of the Sick Industrial
Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 read with Section 41 of the
Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 and item No.3
of the Schedule enclosed thereto and such issue, as appears to have
been decided by the BIFR in the Misc. Petition, filed in the
Reference Case, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
allowed a week’s time to file amendment petition challenging the
aforesaid petition passed in Misc. Application No.67 in Reference
Case No.52 of 1994.

As
requested by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
in the second appeal, the appellant of the said appeal is also
allowed to file an application if it intends to move an appeal under
Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Post the
matters for further hearing on 28th
June 2011 at 2.30 PM on the top of the list.

(S.J. Mukhopadhaya, CJ.)

(J.B.Pardiwala, J.)

*mohd

   

Top