Gujarat High Court High Court

M/S vs Official on 19 July, 2011

Gujarat High Court
M/S vs Official on 19 July, 2011
Author: K.M.Thaker,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

COMA/373/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 373 of 2011
 

In


 

OFFICIAL
LIQUDATOR REPORT No. 108 of 2010
 

In
COMPANY PETITION No. 29 of 1997
 

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

 

M/S
TULIP ORGANIZERS PVT LTD (THRO. AUTHORIZED OFFICER) - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR OF M/S MOTOROL (INDIA) LTD & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DHARMESH V SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR YADAV OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for Respondent(s) :
1, 
MS AMEE YAJNIK for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE NOT RECD BACK for
Respondent(s) : 2 -
5. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/07/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. Mr.

Yadav, learned advocate for OL has submitted report dated 18.7.2011.
A copy of the report is served on the learned advocate for the
applicant.

2. It
has come out from the record that by order dated 1.10.2010 in OLR
No.108 of 2010 the Court permitted nomination. The bidder had to
appoint nominee within 30 days. It appears that there was delay in
appointing the nominee. However, by order dated 11.1.2011 the Court
condoned delay in appointing the nominee and directed OL to accept
the nomination submitted by applicant. It is the case of the
applicant that there was delay of 15 days in submitting the
nomination however, now the nomination has already been submitted in
view of the order dated 11.1.2011. The case of the applicant now is
limited to the execution of sale deed and delivery of the documents
pertaining to the title and property.

3. Mr.

Yadav, learned advocate for the OL has submitted that the documents
are with the secured creditors who are yet not served. The cause list
shows that the notice is not received back qua the secured creditors.
Therefore to await the service of notice to secured creditors, S.
O. to 3.8.2011.

(K.M.THAKER,J.)

Suresh*

   

Top