Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 534 (GUJ)

Anupam Industries Ltd. v. Mamlatdar

2009-08-04

RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2009
Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—This petition is filed by one M/s. Anupam Industries Limited, describing itself as a public limited company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has prayed in Para 10(B) as under : “Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No. 1-Mamlatdar, Anand Rural, Anand, Distt. Kheda, not to take any coercive action against the petitioner Company as the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the property in question, in the interest of justice.” (emphasis supplied) Clause (C), Para 10, reads as under: “Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 15.12.2008 issued by the Respondent No. 1 at Annexure ‘F’ to the petition, and thereby, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 herein, not to take any further action in pursuance of the said notice dated 15.12.2008, at Annexure ‘f’ to the petition.” 2. The present petition is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds, namely, (i) that the present petition is filed against the Show Cause Notice dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure ‘F’, Page 74), addressed to Shaileshbhai Babubhai Patel, Managing Director of M/s. Archon Engineering Co. Ltd., Ark Packing Industries, Plot No. 1805, GIDC, Vithal Udyog Nagar, Mukam Karamsad. By the said notice the addressee is informed that the amount mentioned in the adjoining column is not deposited by the addressee and therefore, a Revenue Officer of the Taluka will enter upon the property in question, after ten days of receipt of the notice between sunrise and sunset and if any person obstructs the Revenue Officer, he will be liable to be punished under the Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that Plots No. 1805/1, 1805/2 and 1805/3 are purchased by the petitioner-company in an auction sale which was effected by the secured creditors-Kalupur Commercial Cooperative Bank Limited, of M/s. Archon Engineering, Ark Packing Industries. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has produced the sale deed at Annexure ‘A’, wherein this fact is mentioned. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has produced the sale deed at Annexure ‘A’, wherein this fact is mentioned. (ii) The learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner has not filed any reply to this Show Cause Notice, though it is dated 15th December 2008 and the petition is filed against the Show Cause Notice on 5th January 2009. The petitioner ought to have replied to the said Show Cause Notice and whatever the petitioner is submitting or is to submit before this Court, like - petitioner company has nothing to do with M/s. Archon Engineering Co. Ltd. could have been stated before the authorities. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the fact that one Jayantibhai Nanjibhai Macwan has filed Special Civil Application No. 12396 of 2008 before this Court against the District Collector (Alien Recovery), and Ark Packing Industries, C/o Arcon Engineering Company Limited. In the copy of memo of the said petition, viz. Special Civil Application No. 12396 of 2008, which is supplied by the learned Advocate for petitioner, there is a handwritten amendment, which reads as under: “Amended as per the Court’s order. Now known as Anupam Industries Limited, Zone C/11, Plot No. 1804/1 to 1805/2, Vithal Udyog Nagar, Anand.” The learned Advocate for the petitioner has not taken trouble to find out as to when this amendment was allowed by the Court, on which application and whether that application contained necessary averments in support of the ‘sought for amendment’. Once a petition is filed before this Court, wherein the petitioner is made a party, may be by making false representation, the desired course of action is that the present petitioner who is party in that petition shall appear before the Court in that petition and file necessary reply and seek its deletion from the said Special Civil Application. At this juncture, the learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already filed a reply in that petition. If that is so, the petitioner may now seek deletion of tis name from the said proceedings. Present petition cannot be entertained by this Court which will amount to allowing the petitioner to ride two horses at the same time. If that is so, the petitioner may now seek deletion of tis name from the said proceedings. Present petition cannot be entertained by this Court which will amount to allowing the petitioner to ride two horses at the same time. With the memo of petition of Special Civil Application No. 12396 of 2008, a xerox copy of certificate issued by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Anand is annexed, which is to the effect that, “The sum of Rs. 6,87,603.50 (Rupees six lac eighty seven thousand six hundred three rupees and fifty paise only) payable to Jayantibhai Nanjibhai Meckwan, c/o Kheda Jilla Shram Seva Sangh, Narsanda, Ta.Naidyad by the Arkon Eng. Co. Ltd., c/o Ark Packing Ind., V.V. Nagar, as per the order passed by this Court on 20.05.2003 in Recovery Application No. 11/02 as per Provision of Revenue Recovery Act, 1980. The said sum is recoverable by you as if it were arrears of land revenue. Which has accrued in your district and you are hereby requested to recover it and to remit it to my office at Anand.” 4. The Court has no reason to advise the petitioner, but a note of the fact is required to be taken that though it is within the knowledge of the petitioner, he has not taken trouble to produce any material about the order passed by the Labour Court on 20th May 2003, the memo of Recovery Application No. 11 of 2002 and the prior proceedings. 5. Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and still he is being harassed by the aforesaid Show Cause Notice issued by the Mamlatdar. This submission cannot wipe out the aforesaid facts and hence cannot be accepted. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations and in view of the fact that what is challenged in this petition is the ‘Show Cause Notice’ dated 15th December 2008 and in the same subject matter Special Civil Application No. 12396 of 2008 is pending in this Court, hence this petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated. At the request of the learned Advocate for the petitioner it is clarified that non entertainment of this petition will not prejudice the rights and contentions of the petitioner-the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 12396 of 2008.