{"id":259667,"date":"2008-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-12-25T01:50:43","modified_gmt":"2017-12-24T20:20:43","slug":"spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Anant S. Dave,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/9888\/2008\t 10\/ 10\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9888 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nSPENTEX\nINDUSTRIES LTD - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nPJ DAVAWALA for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR NEERAJ\nSONI AGP for Respondent(s) : 1-3, \nMR PRAFUL KHAKHKHAR for\nRespondent(s) :\n4, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 25\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">Rule.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t Mr.Neeraj Soni, learned AGP, waives service of notice of rule for<br \/>\n\trespondents Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Praful Khakhkhar waives service of notice<br \/>\n\tof rule for respondent No.4.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">Challenge<br \/>\n\tin this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of<br \/>\n\tIndia is made to the orders dated 21.1.2008 passed by respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 which came to be confirmed in appeal by an order dated 6.6.2008<br \/>\n\tof respondent No.1, on the ground that both the authorities have<br \/>\n\tpassed orders dehors the provisions of principles of natural justice<br \/>\n\tand therefore orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">It<br \/>\n\tis the case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased the<br \/>\n\tproperty in question for which sale deed came to be executed between<br \/>\n\tBank of India and the petitioner company for immovable properties on<br \/>\n\t13.3.2006.  It is not in dispute that though the bank had made all<br \/>\n\tefforts to fetch the highest price of the property, but no bidder<br \/>\n\tcame forward and ultimately the property of the company viz. Tai<br \/>\n\tChiongbang Textile Industries Limited was purchased by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner company.  The sale consideration, as disclosed by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner, was Rs.19.50 crores for purchase of the said property<br \/>\n\texclusive of liabilities towards wages\/salaries to workman, gratuity<br \/>\n\t\/ other dues to Gujarat Electricity Board, Sales Tax, Excise duty.<br \/>\n\tThus, on bifurcation of the value of the land and machinery for<br \/>\n\twhich petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs.46,70,400\/- on the instrument<br \/>\n\tof sale deed submitted for registration and the above payment of<br \/>\n\tstamp duty of the petitioner was on the basis of the the valuation<br \/>\n\tdone by the bank as mentioned in the sale deed i.e. Rs.5,56,00,000\/-<br \/>\n\ttowards land.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">A<br \/>\n\tshow cause notice dated 30.4.2007 was issued by the Deputy<br \/>\n\tCollector, Stamp Duty Valuation,  City Division-2, Ahmedabad under<br \/>\n\tRule 4 of Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property)<br \/>\n\tRules, 1984 (for short  Rules, 1984 ) and the petitioner was<br \/>\n\tcalled upon to furnish relevant material in the form of evidence in<br \/>\n\tsupport of payment of stamp duty and  market price assessed by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner.  It was further stated that the stamp duty paid by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner was not as per correct assessment of the market price of<br \/>\n\tthe land, and therefore, the petitioner was asked to show cause as<br \/>\n\tto why Rs.1,91,63,450\/- should not be recovered towards deficit<br \/>\n\tstamp duty on land and machinery and penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">Reply<br \/>\n\tdated 12.7.2007 was furnished by the petitioner and it was submitted<br \/>\n\tthat the property in question was purchased by the petitioner after<br \/>\n\tundergoing negotiation with the respondent bank and as per the terms<br \/>\n\tand conditions of the agreement movable plant and machinery was sold<br \/>\n\tto the petitioner as per price mentioned in the sale deed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">However,<br \/>\n\tthe competent authority i.e. The Deputy Collector Stamp Value,<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad passed the order on 21.1.2008 observing that the<br \/>\n\texplanation rendered by the petitioner was not acceptable and report<br \/>\n\tdated 30.4.2007 of the Planning Assistant indicate market price of<br \/>\n\tthe property, land and additional construction as Rs.11,82,55,800\/-<br \/>\n\tand after considering the recommendation made by the Planning<br \/>\n\tAssistant in the report dated 30.4.2007, competent authority passed<br \/>\n\tan order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,05,60,000\/- after<br \/>\n\tdeducting the paid stamp duty at the time of presentation of the<br \/>\n\tdocument.  It is to be noted that while passing the above order the<br \/>\n\tcompetent authority disagreed with the report of the Planning<br \/>\n\tAssistant with regard to deduction of 25% area of the total<br \/>\n\tmeasurement of the land and 5% deduction in the total valuation.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">In<br \/>\n\tthe appeal preferred by the petitioner various grounds were raised<br \/>\n\tincluding non-supply of the report of the Planning Assistant,<br \/>\n\trecital of the sale deed and price mentioned therein which was<br \/>\n\tdetermined after negotiations with the nationalized bank of<br \/>\n\tpurchasing of the property by the petitioner. Relevance was placed<br \/>\n\ton various authorities of this Court.  Next it was contended that<br \/>\n\tprocedure under Rules 4 and 8 of the Rules, 1984 was not valid.<br \/>\n\tHowever, Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the<br \/>\n\tcompetent authority and the appeal preferred by the petitioner came<br \/>\n\tto be rejected.  While rejecting the appeal, the Appellate Authority<br \/>\n\tbelieved that there was possibility under valuation of land, since<br \/>\n\tprice of the machinery was four times more than the land. The<br \/>\n\tAppellate Authority even doubted procedure undertaken by the sister<br \/>\n\tconcern of the petitioner and even decisions relied by the<br \/>\n\tappellant-petitioner were found not applicable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">Ms.P.J.Davawala,<br \/>\n\tlearned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that exercise of power<br \/>\n\tby the Competent as well as Appellate authorities is not in<br \/>\n\tconsonance with principles of natural justice and contrary to law<br \/>\n\tlaid down by this Court in two cases viz. (1) <a href=\"\/doc\/161301\/\" id=\"a_1\">Buthabhai<br \/>\n\tMerabhai Bharwad v. State of Gujarat<\/a> reported in 2004(0) GLHEL<br \/>\n\t201925 and (2) <a href=\"\/doc\/403482\/\" id=\"a_1\">Nandadevi Dineshkumar Sharma v. Chief<br \/>\n\tControlling Revenue Authority<\/a> reported in 2006(2) GLH 775,<br \/>\n\twhere this Court found that burden of proof is upon the stamp duty<br \/>\n\tvaluation authority while justifying fixation of higher market value<br \/>\n\tthan revealed in the Deed of Conveyance.  It is further held in the<br \/>\n\tabove decisions that Rules 4 and 8 of the Rules, 1984 and procedure<br \/>\n\tprescribed therein is mandatory.  Learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that reliance was placed on the report dated 30.4.2007<br \/>\n\twhile passing order by the competent authority on 21.1.2008, but the<br \/>\n\tsame was never supplied to the petitioner.  No rational or<br \/>\n\tjustification put-forth by the authority for enhancing market value<br \/>\n\tof the property. Thus, according to learned counsel for the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner, the order of competent authority was contrary to law<br \/>\n\tlaid down by this Court and while confirming the same the Appellate<br \/>\n\tAuthority committed grave error by not even dealing with various<br \/>\n\tgrounds raised by the petitioner in appeal and arrived at a<br \/>\n\tconclusion on the basis of wrong presumption and assessment about<br \/>\n\ttransaction which took place between the petitioner and the<br \/>\n\tnationalized bank by which the property in question came to be<br \/>\n\tpurchased by way of private negotiation.  It is next contended that<br \/>\n\tpurchase of property in question by the petitioner was after<br \/>\n\texhausting all efforts by the respondent bank to sell the property<br \/>\n\tof the company and since no bidder approached the bank even after<br \/>\n\tpublic advertisement in two widely circulated vernacular and English<br \/>\n\tnewspapers, the bank was constrained to enter into private<br \/>\n\tnegotiation and any doubt expressed by the Appellate Authority is<br \/>\n\tbased on surmises and conjectures.  Even merger of CLC Global<br \/>\n\tLimited and the petitioner company was likely to take place<br \/>\n\timmediately.  Lastly, it is submitted that both the authorities viz.<br \/>\n\tCompetent and appellate failed to take into consideration the nature<br \/>\n\tof recital in the sale deed and therefore the impugned orders<br \/>\n\tdeserve to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">Learned<br \/>\n\tAGP relying on the report submitted by the Planning Assistant for<br \/>\n\tvaluation of the property in question and submitted that since the<br \/>\n\tproperty was under-valued and stamp duty paid by the petitioner was<br \/>\n\tnot in accordance with the schedule fixed for such kind of<br \/>\n\tconveyance, and the competent authority has passed the order after<br \/>\n\tfollowing procedure viz. issuance of show cause notice and hearing<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner and same was confirmed in appeal, do not deserve any<br \/>\n\tinterference in exercise of power under Articles 226 and\/or of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">Having<br \/>\n\theard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the<br \/>\n\tcase, including impugned orders, I am inclined to accept the<br \/>\n\tsubmissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is<br \/>\n\tbreach of principles of natural justice inasmuch as when the show<br \/>\n\tcause dated 30.4.2007 was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner<br \/>\n\twas asked to furnish proof in support of market value as assessed by<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner and revealed in the deed of conveyance, which is<br \/>\n\tquite contrary to provisions of Rules 4 and 7 of the Rules, 1984 and<br \/>\n\tagainst the law laid down by this Court in cases of Buthabhai<br \/>\n\tMerabhai Bharwad and Nandadevi Dineshkumar Sharma<br \/>\n\t(supra) where learned Single Judges have held as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>       7.  Rule 4 of the Rules reads as under :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>       4(1)   on   receipt   of   the  instrument  under<br \/>\n              sub-section (3) of section 31 or sub-section  (1)<br \/>\n              of  section  32A,  the Collector of the District,<br \/>\n              where he things fit to do so, may for the purpose<br \/>\n              of his inquiry :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>       (a) call for any  information  or  record  having<br \/>\n              bearing,  on  the  question  before  him from any<br \/>\n              public office, officer  or  authority  under  the<br \/>\n              Central Government, State Government or any local<br \/>\n              authority ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_3\"><p>       (b) examine and record statements from any member<br \/>\n              of the public, officer or the authority under the<br \/>\n              Central  Government  or  State  Government or any<br \/>\n              local authority, and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_4\"><p>       (c) inspect or empower any officer under  him  to<br \/>\n              inspect  the  property  after  due  notice to the<br \/>\n              parties concerned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_5\"><p>       (2) \t  After  examining  the  said  information, records<br \/>\n              and evidence, if any before him the Collector  of<br \/>\n              the  District  shall  issue  a  notice showing he<br \/>\n              basis on which true market value of property  and<br \/>\n              proper    duty    payable    thereon   has   been<br \/>\n              provisionally determined by him, to every  person<br \/>\n              to whom according to the provisions of section 30<br \/>\n              is  liable  to  pay stamp duty in respect of such<br \/>\n              instrument requiring such person to submit within<br \/>\n              15 days from the  date  of  the  service  of  the<br \/>\n              notice  upon  such  person, his representation in<br \/>\n              writing alongwith all the evidence in support  of<br \/>\n              such representation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_6\"><p>       (3)    The   Collector   of   the  District  shall after<br \/>\n              considering the representation, if any,  received<br \/>\n              by   him   under   sub-rule(2)   pass   an  order<br \/>\n              determining the true market value and the  proper<br \/>\n              duty payable on the instrument.]<\/p>\n<p>      While  determining the true market value of the property,<br \/>\n      the Collector is required to  consider  so  many  aspects<br \/>\n      which are  reflected  in  Rule 8 of the Rules.  Rule 8 of<br \/>\n      the rules reads as under :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_7\"><p>       8.  \t  Principles  to  be  taken  into consideration for<br \/>\n              determination of market value &#8211; The Collector  of<br \/>\n              the  District  shall  while  determining the true<br \/>\n              market value of a property which is  the  subject<br \/>\n              matter  of  an instrument take into consideration<br \/>\n              primarily the capitalized value of  the  property<br \/>\n              i.e.   the  amount of money whose annual interest<br \/>\n              at the highest prevailing interest at  any  given<br \/>\n              time  is  its  net  annual  income,  and also the<br \/>\n              following factors, namely :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_8\"><p>       a) in the case of agricultural land,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_9\"><p>       (i) \tclassification of land under  the  provisions<br \/>\n              of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_10\"><p>       (ii) \tthe rate of the land revenue ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_11\"><p>       (iii) the nature of crops raised on the land ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_12\"><p>       (iv) average yield from the land, its nearness to<br \/>\n              road  and  market, its distance from village site<br \/>\n              road to land, facilities available for irrigation<br \/>\n              and also for transport of produce of such land ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_13\"><p>       (v)   value of adjacent land or land in vicinity ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_14\"><p>       (vi) any  factors  mentioned  in  the  instrument<br \/>\n              which    is   relevant   for   the   purpose   of<br \/>\n              determination of true market value ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_15\"><p>       (vii) any other factor which the Collector of the<br \/>\n              District  things  to  have  a  bearing   on   the<br \/>\n              valuation of the land ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_16\"><p>       (b) in the case of non-agricultural land, &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_17\"><p>       (i) the general value of non-agricultural land in<br \/>\n              the vicinity ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_18\"><p>       (ii)  facilities  such  as road, railway station,<br \/>\n              bus route, shops, market and the  like  available<br \/>\n              in the vicinity of the land ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_19\"><p>       (iii)  amenities  like  public offices, hospitals<br \/>\n              and educational  institutions  available  in  the<br \/>\n              vicinity of the land ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_20\"><p>       (iv) development activities including Development<br \/>\n              of industries in the vicinity of the land ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_21\"><p>       (v) any factors mentioned in the instrument which<br \/>\n              is  relevant  for the purpose of determination of<br \/>\n              true market value ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_22\"><p>       (vi) any other factor which the Collector of  the<br \/>\n              District   thinks   to  have  a  bearing  on  the<br \/>\n              valuation of the non-agricultural land ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_23\"><p>       (c) in the case of buildings, &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_24\"><p>       (i) the area of construction ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_25\"><p>       (ii) the floor space index ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_26\"><p>       (iii) type and structure ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_27\"><p>       (iv) year of construction ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_28\"><p>       (v) kind of material used ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_29\"><p>       (vi) locality in which constructed ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_30\"><p>       (vii) rate of depreciation ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_31\"><p>       (viii) any factors mentioned  in  the  instrument<br \/>\n              which    is   relevant   for   the   purpose   of<br \/>\n              determination of true market value ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_32\"><p>       (ix) any other factor which the Collector of  the<br \/>\n              District   thinks   to  have  a  bearing  on  the<br \/>\n              valuation of the building ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_33\"><p>       (d) in the case of any other property, &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_34\"><p>       (i) the nature and condition of the property ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_35\"><p>       (ii) purpose for which the property is being  put<br \/>\n              to use ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_36\"><p>       (iii)  any  factors  mentioned  in the instrument<br \/>\n              which   is   relevant   for   the   purpose    of<br \/>\n              determination of true market value ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_37\"><p>       (iv)  any other factor which the Collector of the<br \/>\n              District  things  to  have  a  bearing   on   the<br \/>\n              valuation of the property;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_38\"><p>      \tNow  considering  Rule 4 of the Rules, on receipt<br \/>\n      of the instrument under sub-section 3 of  Section  31  or<br \/>\n      sub-section  1  of  section  32-A,  the  Collector of the<br \/>\n      District may for the purpose  of  his  inquiry  call  for<br \/>\n      information   or   record  and  examine  the  record  and<br \/>\n      thereafter under sub-rule 2 of Rule  4,  after  examining<br \/>\n      the  aforesaid  information, record and evidence, if any,<br \/>\n      before him the Collector  of  the  District  shall  issue<br \/>\n      notice  showing  the  basis on which true market value of<br \/>\n      the property and the proper duty payable thereon has been<br \/>\n      provisionally determined by him to every person  to  whom<br \/>\n      according  to  provisions  of Section 30 is liable to pay<br \/>\n      stamp duty in respect of such instrument  requiring  such<br \/>\n      person  to submit within 15 days from the date of service<br \/>\n      of the notice upon such  person,  his  representation  in<br \/>\n      writing   along   with   all   the   evidence   of   such<br \/>\n      representation and  considering  the  representation,  if<br \/>\n      any,  the Collector is required to pass appropriate order<br \/>\n      determining the true market value.  As stated above while<br \/>\n      considering and determining the true  market  value,  the<br \/>\n      Collector  is  required  to consider the principles which<br \/>\n      are enumerated  in  Rule  8.    Thus,   considering   the<br \/>\n      aforesaid  provisions, it is the duty of the Collector to<br \/>\n      issue notice  showing  the  basis  on  which  provisional<br \/>\n      market  value  of the property has been determined by him<br \/>\n      on inquiry held by him under Rule 4(1) of the Rules.   In<br \/>\n      the  present  case,  no  basis  have  been  shown  by the<br \/>\n      Dy.Collector while  determining  the  provisional  market<br \/>\n      value  and  the  onus  is  shifted  on  the petitioner to<br \/>\n      produce evidence which is contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules<br \/>\n      itself.  The petitioner is not made aware  of  the  basis<br \/>\n      determining  the provisional market value of the property<br \/>\n      in question fixed by him.  Thus, no opportunity has  been<br \/>\n      given  to  the  petitioner  to  meet  with  the  basis or<br \/>\n      evidence with  the  Dy.Collector  while  determining  the<br \/>\n      provisional market  value.    Thus,  the  impugned  order<br \/>\n      itself passed by the respondent no.   2  which  is  based<br \/>\n      upon  the  notice  under  Rules  is  itself defective and<br \/>\n      contrary to Rule 4 and is required to be quashed and  set<br \/>\n      aside .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_11\">Thus,<br \/>\n\tthe above aspect of furnishing proof of market value as revealed in<br \/>\n\tthe deed of conveyance was wrongly considered and the Appellate<br \/>\n\tAuthority also did not apply its mind about mandatory requirement of<br \/>\n\tRules 4 and 8 of the Rules, 1984, therefore, the impugned orders<br \/>\n\tdeserve to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">It<br \/>\n\tis to be noted that report of the Planning Assistant and show cause<br \/>\n\tnotice issued to the petitioner were on the same date i.e.<br \/>\n\t30.4.2007. That heavy reliance was placed on the report of the<br \/>\n\tPlanning Assistant and copy of the same was never supplied to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner. Thus, on this ground also impugned orders deserve to be<br \/>\n\tquashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">So<br \/>\n\tfar as reasoning of the Appellate Authority with regard to<br \/>\n\tunder-valuation of land and over-valuation of the machinery is<br \/>\n\tconcerned, there is no basis for arriving at such a conclusion and<br \/>\n\tthe same is based on surmises and conjectures.  The transaction<br \/>\n\twhich has taken place between the petitioner and the nationalized<br \/>\n\tbank-respondent No.4 herein was in accordance with law and after<br \/>\n\tfollowing procedure, as envisaged and as a last resort when no<br \/>\n\tbidder put  forth its claim pursuant to the public advertisement in<br \/>\n\ttwo newspapers.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">In<br \/>\n\tthe above circumstances, orders dated 6.6.2008 passed by the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1 and order dated 21.1.2008 passed by respondent No.2<br \/>\n\tare quashed and set aside and the authority concerned is directed to<br \/>\n\ttake fresh decision in the matter after affording opportunity of<br \/>\n\thearing to the petitioner and considering the law laid down by this<br \/>\n\tCourt in various decisions including the above two decisions, within<br \/>\n\ta period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of the writ of<br \/>\n\tthis order.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">Rule<br \/>\n\tis made absolute to the aforesaid extent only.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\"> (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) <\/p>\n<p>*pvv<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008 Author: Anant S. Dave,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9888\/2008 10\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9888 of 2008 ========================================================= SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 3 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-259667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-24T20:20:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-24T20:20:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2677,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-24T20:20:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-24T20:20:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-24T20:20:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008"},"wordCount":2677,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008","name":"Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-24T20:20:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spentex-vs-state-on-25-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Spentex vs State on 25 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=259667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259667\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}