Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
COMA/503/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 503 of 2008
In
COMPANY
PETITION No. 147 of 2001
=========================================================
DILIPBHAI
MAFATLAL SHAH - Applicant(s)
Versus
O
L OF PIRAMAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD (IN LIQN) & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
MR K S NANAVATI, LD SENIOR
ADVOCATE WITH MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI
for Applicant
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR RM DESAI for Respondent(s) :
1,
MR ANAL S SHAH for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date
: 17/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Learned
Advocate for the applicant seeks permission to amend the application
by adding prayer clause (BB) in the Judges Summons.
2. Heard
learned Advocate for the applicant as well as learned Advocate for
the Official Liquidator.
3. The
applicant is permitted to amend the application. Amendment to be
carried out not later than 18/02/2010.
4. Considering
the amended prayer the application is taken up for hearing today on
the footing that the amendment is carried out.
5. The
application as originally preferred is seeking a declaration that the
applicant is the owner of Flat No.B-61, Tirth Bhoomi Appartment, Near
Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad 380 006 and that the Official
Liquidator has no right to take possession. After the parties were
heard at length the Court found that the applicant will have to
establish the title to the property and for this purpose the
applicant shall have to lead necessary evidence. Hence the
amendment.
6. In
the circumstances without expressing any opinion on merits the
applicant is granted permission under provisions of Section 446 of
the Companies Act, 1956 to file an appropriate suit in an appropriate
Court for establishing title to the property and other reliefs, if
any, that the applicant may be entitled to. Needless to state that
this order granting permission to file the suit shall not be
construed as expression of any opinion either way and the Civil Court
having jurisdiction and competent to decide the dispute shall record
its finding after conducting the trial.
7. On
22/09/2008 when this application came up for hearing in the first
instance the Court has recorded the statement made by Shri Nandish
Chudgar, learned Advocate that the applicant is not interested in
disposing of the property in dispute and in light of the said
statement the Official Liquidator was directed, pending hearing and
disposal of the present application, that possession of Flat
No.B-61, Tirth Bhoomi Appartment, Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge,
Ahmedabad 380 006 shall not disturbed till further orders that
may be made by the Court. In light of the said order it would be in
fitness of things if the same direction is continued on the basis of
statement made by learned Advocate, reiterated once again today, that
the said interim arrangement shall continue till the suit is filed
and application for interim injunction is decided by competent Civil
Court in accordance with law.
8. The
application stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
(D.A.Mehta,
J.)
sompura
Top