Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/11066/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF No. 11066 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1835 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 11082 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9960 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 11084 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1675 of 2009
=====================================
M/S
PARSHURAM POTTERY WORKS LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR PC KAVINA, SR ADVOCATE with MR
G RAMAKRISHNAN for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NIRAL R MEHTA for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 19/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 All
these three Civil Applications are filed by the original respondent –
M/s. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. through its Managing Director
praying for vacating the ad-interim relief granted vide order dated
8th March 2010 (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice HK
Rathod, as he then was) in Special Civil Application Nos. 1835 of
2009, 9960 of 2009 and 1675 of 2009. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. PC
Kavina with Mr. G. Ramakrishnan, learned advocate for the applicant
submitted that the ad-interim relief is granted in terms of Para
7(c). For ready reference, the same is quoted from Civil
Application
No. 11066 of 2011:
“7(c) Pending
the hearing till the final disposal of this petition, be pleased to
grant ad-interim relief in terms of restraining the
respondents herein from dealing with any kind of movable and
immovable properties and/or directing the respondent herein to
furnish bank guarantee of the total amount due under the order dated
10.2.1999.”
2.0 The
learned senior advocate for the applicant submitted that as the
applicant is having a ready buyer and in the opinion of the
applicant, the property is fetching the reasonable price, these Civil
Applications are moved to see that the ad-interim relief is suitably
modified or vacated so as to enable him to deal with the property.
The learned learned senior advocate for the applicant submitted that
to take care of the interest of the respondent authority –
original petitioner, it is deemed proper by the applicant to file
Undertaking along with Bank Guarantee for an amount, which is
mentioned in the summary attached to every Undertaking filed in each
of the Civil Application. In Civil Application No. 11066 of 2011,
the amount mentioned is Rs.1,55,45,517/- (Rupees One crore fifty five
lakh forty five thousand five hundred seventeen only). In Civil
Application No. 11082 of 2011 the amount mentioned is Rs.11,09,112/-
(Rupees Eleven lakh nine thousand one hundred twelve only). In Civil
Application No. 11084 of 2011 the amount mentioned is Rs.7,40,028/-
(Rupees Seven lakh forty thousand twenty eight only). The
Undertakings are filed by Managing Director
Ms. Saritaben A.
Ganpule.
3.0 Having
considered the fact situation of the case, the Court is of the
opinion that the ad-interim relief granted at the relevant time is
modified to the effect that, ‘the respondent, on furnishing the Bank
Guarantees to the satisfaction of the concerned authority –
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, it will be open for the
respondent to deal with the property’.
3.1 At
the request of learned advocate Mr. Niral R. Mehta for the petitioner
in the aforesaid petitions, it is clarified that, this order of
modifying / vacating ad-interim relief will be effective only after
furnishing the Bank Guarantee to the satisfaction of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner for the amount mentioned herein above.
It is also clarified that, this permission to deal with the property
is only with reference to the ad-interim relief granted by this Court
and it does not deal with or change any order passed by the competent
Court against the respondent.
3.2 The
applicant herein – original respondent is directed to keep
these Bank Guarantees valid till the final disposal of these
petitions.
4.0 With
this, the Civil Applications are disposed of. Direct service
is permitted.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top