Loading...

Mr vs Mr on 24 July, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Mr vs Mr on 24 July, 2008
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/9587/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9587 of 2008
 

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


 

CHANCHALBEN
CHIMANLAL JAIN AND ANOTHER
 

Versus
 

L
R PATHAN - ARBITRATOR AND OTHERS
 

=================================================
 Appearance :
 

MR
MITUL K SHELAT for the Petitioners
 

MR
SI NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS ANUJA NANAVATI for MRS VD
NANAVATI for Respondent No.2
 

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


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 


 

Date
: 24/07/2008 

 

 


 

ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard Mr.Mitul
K.Shelat, learned advocate for the petitioners.

The learned advocate
for the petitioners moves draft amendment. The same is allowed.

2. The learned for the
petitioners invited attention of the Court to provisions of
Sub-section (6) of Section 126 of the Multi State Cooperative
Societies Act, 2002. The learned advocate submitted that in view of
that specific provision, proceedings pending before the Board of
Nominees, Surat, which were then transferred to Valsad, could not
have been sent to the Arbitrator. Besides, it is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner was never informed about such transfer
by any authority.

It is also the case
of the petitioners that the Arbitrator, after being in charge of the
proceedings, did not inform the petitioner except a notice which was
issued on 24.12.2005 at the old address, where the petitioner is not
residing for the last five years.

3. The learned
advocate for the petitioners submitted that without any public
advertisement, the Arbitrator has thought it fit to sell the plant
and machinery of the company to one Shah Traders, who is joined as
respondent No.8 by the draft amendment.

4. The learned
advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner apprehends
that if the Arbitrator is not restrained from proceeding further with
the proceedings, he is likely to sell off other properties of
petitioner No.2 company.

5. On a clear
understanding that if any of the aforesaid averments are found to be
untrue, the petition will be liable to be dismissed with exemplary
cost of Rs.15,000/0 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only), NOTICE
returnable on 31.07.2008. Ms.Anuja Nanavati, learned
advocate, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

Interim relief
in terms of paragraph No.9 E and EE till then.

Direct service
is permitted for rest of the respondents.

(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)

*Shitole

   

Top

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information