Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
OJCA/385/2011 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 385 of 2011
In
COMPANY APPLICATION No. 502 of 2009
In
OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT No. 40 of
2008
=================================================
INTERNATIONAL
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD - Applicant(s)
Versus
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR OF WOOD POLYMERS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) & 7 -
Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
NAVIN K PAHWA for Applicant(s) : 1,
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, 4, 6,
MRS
SWATI SOPARKAR for Respondent(s) : 3,
MS BALAR THACKER for
Respondent(s) : 5,
MR PRANAV G DESAI for Respondent(s) : 7,
None
for Respondent(s) :
8,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 10/10/2011
ORAL ORDER
Rule.
Mrs. Soparkar, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of the respondent No.3, Ms. Thacker, learned advocate, waives
service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.5 and Mr.
Desai, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf
of the respondent No.7.
2. The
applicant has taken out present application to implead two persons,
whose names and addresses are mentioned in para-3 page-3 of present
application, as respondent Nos.3/1 and 3/2, in view of the sad demise
of respondent No.3.
3. Learned
advocate for the applicant has also submitted that though in para-3
of the application, it is mentioned that “three legal
representatives”, there are, actually, only two heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased respondent No.3. He also submitted
that except the said two persons, whose names are mentioned in para-3
page-3 of the application, there are no other heirs or legal
representatives of the respondent No.3. Hence, the request.
4. Mrs.
Soparkar, learned advocate, has appeared and submitted that she has
instructions to appear on behalf of the proposed respondent Nos.3/1
and 3/2 and she has no objection, if the request, as prayed for in
present application, is granted.
5. In
view of the said statement by Mrs. Soparkar, learned advocate for the
proposed respondents, the relief prayed for in para 8(B) is granted.
The applicant is permitted to implead the two persons, named in
para-3 page-3 of the present application, as respondent Nos.3/1 and
3/2 in Company Application No.502 of 2009. The application is
allowed.
Rule
is made absolute accordingly.
[K.M.Thaker,
J.]
kdc
Top