Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
COMA/396/2011 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 396 of 2011
In
COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 619 of 2008
In
COMPANY
PETITION No. 252 of
2000
=========================================================
SAPTAK
TRADELINK PVT LTD - Applicant(s)
Versus
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR OF M/S GTCL MOBILE CUM TECHNOLOGY LTD & 1 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
SANGEETA N PAHWA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
JS YADAV for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR SS PANESAR for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 30/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.
The applicant has taken out present proceedings seeking direction
against the respondents to execute the sale deed. The request is made
in light of the fact that the applicant being purchaser of the
property sold under the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(“SARFAESI” Act for short) action, desires the conveyance
deed may be executed. However, respondents have not executed the
conveyance deed.
2.
Mr. Yadav, learned advocate for OL has submitted that in this
particular case OL had not taken possession of the property in
question because it was sold by the secured creditor under the
SARFAESI action without participation of the OL in any manner
whatsoever. Therefore, when the entire transaction is executed by and
between the secured creditor and the purchaser, the OL is not in
position and / or liable to execute sale deed and it is for the
secured creditor to execute sale deed, if necessary.
3.
Learned advocate for the secured creditor has submitted that in view
of the provisions under Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 9 of the SARFAESI
Act the secured creditor who sold the properties in question under
SARFAESI action has to issue share certificate which can be got
registered by payment of appropriate stamp duty and any conveyance
deed for the said purpose is not necessary.
So
as to make submission in support of the said contention learned
advocates have requested for some time. Hence, S.O. to
09.09.2011.
(K.M.THAKER,J.)
Suresh*
Top