Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/235320/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 2353 of 2008
In
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 11108 of 2007
In
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 299 of 2007
=========================================================
SURAT
DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD. - Applicant(s)
Versus
SHREEJI
DEVELOPERS THRO' NARENDRABHAI PREMJIBHAI PATEL & 2 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BS PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1,MRS RANJAN B PATEL
for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR DHAVAL D VYAS for Opponent(s) : 1,
None
for Opponent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 18/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Learned
advocate Mr BS Patel for the applicant did not press this application
qua respondents No. 2 and 3 since they were not parties in the lower
proceedings reserving right of the applicant to take appropriate
steps against them if permissible under the law.
2. The
grievance of the applicant herein is that respondent No.1 had not
complied with the directions issued by this Court contained in the
order dated 01.10.2007 passed in Civil Application No. 11108 of 2007
in Appeal from Order No. 299 of 2007. In the said order, following
directions were issued:-
I also
direct the present respondent (original defendant) to give names of
the persons to whom the aforesaid property has been sold away with
the details, viz. (i) name, (ii) date of transfer of property, and
(iii) consideration for the aforesaid property.
I also
direct the present respondent (original defendant) whether clause
No.14 of the Agreement No.1 dated 21st July, 2004, has
been complied with or not.
3. Having
heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having
perused the affidavit-in-reply dated 02.09.2008 filed by respondent
No.1 in the present application as well as the affidavit dated
01.11.2007 filed in the main Appeal from Order, I find that no case
of contempt is made out. It is not in dispute that in so far as the
details regarding the names of the persons to whom the property was
sold has already been supplied. With respect to later portion of the
direction, namely, the requirement of respondent No.1 to state
whether Clause No.14 of the agreement has been complied with or not,
in the affidavit filed by the said respondent in the Appeal from
Order, it is clearly stated that the same has been complied with.
This itself would be sufficient to comply with the directions issued
by this Court. However, respondent No.1 has further stated that he
is ready and willing to give necessary details to the appellant or
produce the same on the record. In view of further clarification, it
is not necessary to take further cognizance of this Misc. Civil
Application. However, it is directed that such details shall be
supplied to the appellant as well as produced before the Trial Court
with an affidavit filed by respondent No.1.
This may
be done within four weeks from today.
4. With
this direction, this Misc. Civil Application is disposed of.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
mrpandya*
Top