Gujarat High Court High Court

Board vs Chairman on 14 November, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Board vs Chairman on 14 November, 2011
Author: K.M.Thaker,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

COMP/133/2010	 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

COMPANY
PETITION No. 133 of
2010 
 
=================================================
 

BOARD
OF INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

CHAIRMAN
& MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S JAYANT PAPER MILLS LTD & 16 -
Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
BOARD
OPINION for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR JS YADAV for Respondent(s) :
1, 
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA for Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED
for Respondent(s) : 2,4 - 6,8 - 9,11 - 14, 17, 
MS SONA SAGAR for
Respondent(s) : 3, 
MR NIRAL R MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 7, 
MR
AJAY R MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 10, 
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for
Respondent(s) : 15, 
MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
16, 
=================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

Date
: 14/11/2011  
ORAL ORDER

One
Mr. Shanmugha T. Pillai is present in the Court, when the petition is
taken up for hearing. He has submitted that he is serving as Sr.
Officer (Law) in the respondent No.5 – GAIL. He has further
submitted that by way of One Time Settlement, the entire claims/dues
of the GAIL are settled and now the GAIL has no claim/dues against
the company. The said submission is taken note of and at the time of
passing appropriate orders, the said aspects shall be taken into
consideration.

On
behalf of one of the respondents, viz. a union representing the
workmen of the company, Mr. Mehta, learned advocate has requested for
adjournment on the ground that he needs to take instructions from his
client in connection with certain properties which, according to the
information of the union, has been sold out without any intimation to
the Court or the O.L.

One
Mr. Kirtikant V. Sheth has appeared as party-in-person and claimed
that he is representing about 30 workers of the company. He has also
requested for time on the ground that the said group of workers need
time to engage advocate. He has submitted that he has remained
present pursuant to the receipt of intimation issued by the office of
O.L. giving intimation about present proceedings and date of hearing.

Mr.

Yadav, learned advocate for the OL, has filed Official Liquidator’s
Report dated 10.11.2011. Upon receipt of the said report also,
learned advocates for the parties have requested for time to collect
details in connection with the said report.

Mr.

Yadav, learned advocate for the OL, has also submitted that in
pursuance of the earlier order/directions, the OL has already invited
claims. The last date of receipt of the claims is 25.11.2011. He has
clarified that until now, any claims are not received. He further
submitted that in pursuance of the earlier order, a Sale Committee
has been constituted and Valuer also has been appointed and the
report of the Valuer is awaited.

Having
regard to the aforesaid aspects and for the aforesaid reasons, S.O.
to 2.12.2011.

[K.M.Thaker,
J.]

kdc

   

Top