Gujarat High Court
Kalpesh Cotton Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1576/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1576 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12104 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1576 of 2024
==========================================================
KALPESH COTTON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
Versus
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE - BOTAD & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YUSUFKHAN PATHAN(3799) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RAXIT J DHOLAKIA, ADVOCATE FOR MR PRANAV G DESAI(290) for
the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This intra court appeal is filed by the trader/ original respondent no.2 challenging the judgment and order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition where the challenge was to the public notice dated 12.07.2015 issued by the respondent bank qua the goods/ cotton bales worth of Rs.1.10 crores confiscated by the market committee [Agricultural Produce Market Committee - 'APMC'].
Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:36:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1576/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined
2. The original prayers made in the writ petition as noted in the judgment impugned indicate that the Agricultural Produce Market Committee was raising a dispute with regard to the sale of confiscated goods by the bank under the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [in short referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act']. In any case, there was no challenge by the original respondent no.2/appellant herein about any proceedings conducted by the respondent - bank or the APMC before the writ Court. In fact, the writ Court had adjudicated the dispute between the bank and the APMC as to who will get priority over the sale proceeds of the confiscated goods.
3. In this scenario, the trader/ original respondent no.2 namely the appellant herein cannot be permitted to challenge the correctness of the judgment and order dated 24.01.2023. For any issue pertaining to renewal of license of the original respondent no.2 or any recovery made by the bank while conducting the sale of the secured assets or the money sought to be realized by the APMC, it is open for the appellant herein to avail statutory remedy available to him. In any case, the Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:36:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1576/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined correctness of the judgment and order dated 24.01.2023 whereby the dispute between the respondent - bank and the APMC has been adjudicated, cannot be examined at the instance of the present appellant who was respondent no.2 in the writ proceedings.
4. The present appeal, is dismissed, being misconceived. It is clarified that dismissal of the present appeal will not come in the way of the appellant/ original respondent no.2 in any independent proceedings, if initiated by him or any future proceedings.
Consequently, the Civil Application for Stay would not survive and the same is disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:36:28 IST 2025