Gujarat High Court High Court

Whether vs Unknown on 23 October, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Whether vs Unknown on 23 October, 2008
Author: Mohit S. K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

OJA/18/2003	 4/ 5	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

O.J.APPEAL
No. 18 of 2003
 

In


 

COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 193 of 2001
 

In
 

COMPANY
PETITION No. 205 of 1996
 

WITH
 

CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 53 of 2003
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE MR.
JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH 		Sd/- 
 


 

HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
				Sd/- 
=========================================

1.

Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

YES

2.

To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?

NO

3.

Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

NO

4.

Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?

NO

5.

Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

NO

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

MAHENDRA
BAPALAL PATEL & 1 – Appellants

Versus

O.L.

OF SARANGPUR COTTON MILLS & 2 – Opponents

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

NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for
Appellants.

None for Opponent No. 1.

MR MG NAGARKAR for
Opponents : 2 – 3.

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

CORAM
:

HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH

and

HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ

Date
: 23/10/2008
CAV JUDGMENT

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)

The
appellant has filed this appeal against the order and judgment of
the learned Company Judge dated 30.07.2002 passed in Company
Application No.193 of 2001 rejecting the prayer made by the
applicant for handing over the possession to the applicant,
following the decision of this Court in the case of legal heirs of
deceased Fakirchand Ambaram Patel V/s. Official Liquidator of Amruta
Mills Limited, 2002 (3) GLH 367.

Heard
learned Counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents
as well as their respective pleadings.

The
land in question was originally given on lease to Sarangpur Cotton
Mills Company Limited which had gone into liquidation. The
management of the Company was taken over by Gujarat State Textile
Corporation, a Government Company incorporated on 30.11.1968. The
Government of Gujarat passed an Ordinance being Ordinance No. 18 of
1985 i.e. Gujarat Closed Textile Undertakings (Nationalization)
Ordinance, 1985. The said Ordinance was subsequently substituted by
the Gujarat Act, X of 1986 i.e. Gujarat Closed Textile Undertakings
(Nationalization) Act, 1986. Under the said Ordinance, specified
textile undertakings were nationalised under Section 3 thereof and
the said specified textile undertakings stood transferred to and
vested absolutely in the State Government. Sarangpur Cotton Mills
Limited, Ahmedabad was specified textile undertaking. Under the
provisions of the said Act, the said specified textile undertaking
vested and transferred in the Gujarat State Textile Corporation,
which is a Government of Gujarat Company, and the Gujarat Government
being the sole contributory and shareholder of the Company.

At
the relevant time, there were 17 textile Mills of GSTC as per the
annual report and accounts for the year 1994 95. On account of
stringent crisis in the textile industry in the whole of the State
of Gujarat and other relevant reasons, GSTC could not do well and,
therefore, GSTC approached the Board for Industrial & Financial
Reconstruction (for short ‘BIFR’) for revival and reconstruction of
the Company. BIFR, after hearing the parties concerned, found that
it was not possible to meet the losses suffered by the GSTC within a
reasonable time and there was no likelihood of the GSTC being
revived in future and, therefore, opinion was forwarded by BIFR to
this Court under Section 20 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special
Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short ‘SICA’) for winding up of GSTC.
That opinion was registered as Company Petition No.205 of 1996 in
the registry of this Court and the notices were issued upon the
Banks, labour Union and other financial institutions. Ultimately,
after hearing the concerned parties, this Court vide its order dated
06.02.1997, has passed an order to wind up GSTC and the Official
Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed to take over the
charge of all assets and properties of the GSTC including possession
thereof and Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (for short
‘GIDC’) was appointed as an Agent of Official Liquidator under
Section 457 (2) (v) of the Companies Act, 1956 for the purpose of
protection, preservation and disposal of the properties and the said
Agent GIDC was to act under the instructions of the Official
Liquidator.

It
is in the above background of the matter, the applicant has filed
application for handing over the possession of the land in question
which was given on lease to the Company in liquidation.

The
buildings and machineries of the Company in winding up were sold.
When it came to sell of the leasehold rights of the Company in
liquidation over the land, the applicant claiming to be lessor
challenge the right and power of the Official Liquidator to sell the
leasehold rights of the Company in winding up and had contended that
upon winding up order having been passed, the lessors were entitled
to get back possession of lands.

By
judgment dated 30.07.2002, the learned Company Judge rejected the
above claim and held that the lease was a long term lease and the
leasehold rights over the land of the Company in winding up is the
assets of the Company which was put up for sale by the Official
Liquidator.

This
Court vide order dated 17.07.2006 passed in Company Application
No.250 of 2006 moved by the State Government directed the Official
Liquidator to hand over possession of the immovable properties to
the State Government. Hence, the question of putting this property
on sale does not arise. The contentions raised on behalf of the
lessors in the present appeal were also raised in OJ Appeal Nos.65
to 67 of 2006. By our judgment dated 17.10.2008, we have rejected
the contentions and dismissed the appeals of the lessors.

Following
the aforesaid decision, the present appeal also deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Interim relief,
if any, stands vacated.

In
view of dismissal of appeal, OJ Civil Application No.53 of 2003 do
not survive and it is accordingly disposed of.

										     Sd/-				Sd/-
									
								
							
						
					
				
			
			 

			[M.
			S. SHAH, J.]	[K. A. PUJ, J.]
		
	

 

Savariya

    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top