Gujarat High Court
Legal Heirs And Reps. Of Decd. ... vs Ol Of M/S Anand Cotspin Ltd on 9 June, 2021
Bench: B.N. Karia
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 882 of 2021
In
F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 8156 of 2021
==================================================================
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND
DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
Versus
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
==================================================================
Appearance:
MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA(6685) for Applicants No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5, 1.6
MR SAURABH PATEL for the Respondent(s) No.1
==================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 09/06/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)
1. This O.J. Appeal has been filed against the order dated
10.12.2020 passed by the learned Company Judge in OLR No.64
of 2020 whereby the learned Company Judge permitted the
Official Liquidator to file First Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 against the Decree dated 23.01.2008
passed by the City Civil Court, Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit
No.842 of 2007.
2. The present Appeal has been filed by Legal Representatives
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
of deceased Ratilal Chunilal Rana and deceased Parvatiben
Ratilal Rana seeking leave of this Court to file the present Appeal
against the aforesaid order of the learned Company Judge of
10.12.2020, the relevant portion of which is quoted below for
ready reference:
"2. The prayer in the present application is that the
Official Liquidator be permitted to prefer First Appeal
under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure with
necessary application to challenge the judgement and
decree dated 23.01.2008 passed by the City Civil Court,
Vadodar in Regular Civil Suit No. 842 of 2007.
3. The Official Liquidator Report indicates that by
an order dated 20.03.2003 in Company Petition
No.205 of 1998, the company was ordered to be
wound up and an Official Liquidator was appointed.
The Official Liquidator took over the possession of the
estate on 05.06.2003. An application being Company
Application No. 8 of 2019 was served on the liquidator
with a prayer not to include the land situated at
District Vadodara bearing T.P. Scheme No. 5 Final Plot
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
337 admeasuring 21739 sq. mtrs. on the east side of
the said plot lying on City Survey No. 295, 298 and 335
bearing revenue survey no. 849 paiki and 857/12 and
several other connected survey numbers on the
ground that they are owners and in possession of the
land as per the registered sale deed in their favour.
According to the report, it appears that the occupants
of the said property had filed Regular Civil Suit No.
842 of 2007. The said suit came to be allowed on
23.01.2008 and the defendants i.e. Anand Cotspin
Limited were restrained from disturbing the
possession of the land in question. The case of the
Official Liquidator is that they ought to have been
joined as party to the suit in para 7. Reliance is placed
on Section 446(1) of the Companies Act to suggest that
no suit or legal proceedings shall commence if on the
date when the company is wound up without joining
the official liquidator and without leave of the court. It
is on this ground that the prayer is made.
4. In view of the above, the prayer of the Official
Liquidator is granted in terms of para 8(A) of the
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
application. OLR No. 64 of 2020 is accordingly
allowed."
3. Though OLR No.64 of 2020 made various prayers, the
learned Company Judge only granted prayer 8(A) permitting
Official Liquidator to file First Appeal. The prayers in OLR No.64
of 2020 are quoted below:
"8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the Official Liquidator most respectfully seeks
following orders and directions of this Hon'ble Court:
(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the
Official Liquidator under Section 457(1)(a) of
the Companies Act, 1956 to prefer First Appeal
under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code
with necessary applications in the District Court
at Vadodara challenging the Judgment & decree
dated 23.01.2008 passed by City Civil Court,
Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No.842 of 2007.
(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and
set aside sale deed registered before the Sub
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
Registrar, Vadodara1, dated 28.10.2013
registered on 11.11.2013 with respect to land
stiuated at District - Vadodara bearing TP
Scheme No.5, Final Plot No.337 admeasuring
21739 sq. mtrs. paiki 5882 sq. mtrs. on east side
of the said plot lying at City Survey No.295, 298
and 335 bearing Revenue Survey No.849 paiki
and 857/12 and direct the occupants to
handover the possession of aforesaid land of the
company in liquidation to the Official
Liquidator.
(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and
set aside sale deed registered before the Sub
Registrar, Vadodara1, dated 28.10.2013
registered on 02.01.2014 with respect to land
situated at District - Vadodara bearing Revenue
Survey No.858 in City Survey No.22
admeasuring Acre 0 - 32 Guntha i.e. 34848 sq.
feet i.e. 3237.46 sq. mtrs and direct the occupants
to handover the possession of aforesaid land of
the company in liquidation to the Official
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
Liquidator.
(D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and
set aside sale deed registered before the Sub
Registrar, Vadodara1, dated 28.10.2013
registered on 11.11.2013 with respect to land
situated at District - Vadodara bearing Revenue
Survey No.856 admeasuring 10825 sq. mtrs. at
City Survey No.331 lying and situated TP Scheme
No.5 bearing Final Plot No.338 having final area
of 10875 sq. mtrs and direct the occupants to
handover the possession of aforesaid land of the
company in liquidation to the Official
Liquidator.
(E) Such other and further orders and directions as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may
also be passed."
4. Learned counsel for the Applicants / Appellants Mr.Tirthraj
Pandya submitted that without giving an opportunity of hearing
or impleading the present Appellants on the Report of the Official
Liquidator viz. OLR No.64 of 2020 with regard to the company
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
M/s. Anand Cotspin Limited (In Liquidation), the learned
Company Judge ought not to have granted the said permission to
the Official Liquidator to file First Appeal against the Decree
dated 23.01.2008 in Regular Civil Suit No.842 of 2007 which was
filed by the present Appellants for seeking ownership right by way
of adverse possession on land bearing Survey Nos.856, 857 and
858 at Panigate area of Vadodara City and an ex parte Decree
was granted on 23.01.2008 in their favour against Anand Cotspin
Limited and therefore, the present Appellants / Applicants
seeking leave also ought to have been heard by the learned
Company Judge before passing the said order. The said ex parte
Decree dated 23.01.2008 is also quoted below to relevant extract:
"IN THE COURT OF 6TH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT VADODARA
(SHRI J.K. GHOGRA)
Reg. Civil Suit No.842/07
Plaintiffs:
1. Bhagvandas Nanku Yadav
2. Heirs of deceased Ranchhodbhai Mathurbhai
Rajput
1. Kantaben widow of Ranchhodbhai
Mathurbhai Rajput
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
2. Sukhdevbhai Ranchhodbhai Rajput
3. Dilipbhai Ranchhodbhai Rajput
3. Heirs of deceased Arjunbhai Chunibhai
1. Sanjivbhai @ Dhananjay Arjunbhai
4. Heirs of deceased Maganbhai Gavabhai
1. Savitaben Maganbhai
5. Bhailal Raijibhai Rajput
6. Heirs of deceased Ratilal Chunilal
1. Rana Pravinbhai Ratilal
7. Heirs of Kantilal Jivanbhai
1. Rana Rameshbhai Kantilal
8. Shankerlal Marwadi
All resident of P.G. Textile Mill,
Panigate, Nr. Bhradra, Vadodara
Bhagvandas Nanku Yadav, Power of Attorney
of No.2 to 8,
P.G. Textile Mill, Outside Panigate,
Vadodara
v/s.
Defendant:
Anand Cotton Mill Limited
P.G. Textile Mill Compound,
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
Outside Panigate, Nr. Bhradra,
Vadodara
L.A. Shri Nilesh S. Joshi for Plaintiffs
L.A. Shri ... ... ... for the Defendant
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby allowed.
It is hereby declared that the land bearing Revenue
Survey No.856, admeasuring 10825, R.S. No.857
admeasuring 20943, R.S. No.857/2, admeasuring 0
0607, R.S. No.858/1 admeasuring 03237 are the
ownership of defendant, situated in Panigate area of
Vadodara city, of which the plaintiffs are in
occupation and possession since more than 47 years
within the knowledge of defendant without any
obstructing and interference and hence plaintiffs have
got ownership rights by adverse possession and
became owner.
The defendant is hereby permanently restrained by
permanent injunction taking law in hands and from
taking possession of the suit land without due process
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
of law from the plaintiffs, as they have no right over
the suit property / lands.
The defendant is ordered to bear the costs of plaintiffs
and bear his own.
Decree be drawn accordingly.
Pronounced today in open court on this 23rd day of
January, 2008."
5. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellants /
Applicants and learned counsel for Official Liquidator, we are not
inclined to entertain the said Original Jurisdictional Appeal by
granting leave to the present Appellants / Applicants for the
following reasons:
(a) By the order dated 10.12.2020, the learned Company
Judge has only granted prayer 8(A) of said OLR No.64
of 2020 and the Official Liquidator has been
permitted to file First Appeal to claim Company's
rights over the land in question, for the company in
liquidation namely, M/s. Anand Cotspin Limited (In
Liquidation) against which said Ex parte Decree
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
dated 23.01.2008 was obtained by the Plaintiffs. The
order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the learned
Company Judge is only an administrative order
passed by the learned Company Judge permitting the
Official Liquidator to avail the right of appeal on
behalf of the company in liquidation and this
administrative order does not affect any rights of the
present Appellants and therefore, they don't have any
right of hearing before passing of such order by
learned Company Judge and it cannot be said to be
wrong or illegal in any manner. Secondly, the present
Applicants can very well oppose the First Appeal itself
when filed at the appropriate forum, if they can do so
on merits.
6. Therefore, such administrative order is not required to be
interfered by the Division Bench of this Court in the present
Original Jurisdictional Appeal nor the Applicants deserve to be
granted any such leave to appeal.
7. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this Appeal or
grant leave to appeal to the present Appellants / Applicants
C/CA/882/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS. OF DECD. RATILAL CHUNILAL RANA AND DECD. PARVATIBEN RATILAL RANA
v.
OL OF M/S ANAND COTSPIN LTD.
because that in our opinion will unnecessarily spill the litigation
on a wrong route, which we consider wholly unnecessary and
uncalled for.
8. Therefore, with these observations, the Application namely,
R/Civil Application No.882 of 2021 for seeking leave to appeal is
rejected. Consequently, O.J. Appeal No.8156 of 2021 arising out
of OLR No.64 of 2020 is also dismissed. No costs.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the opposite parties and one
copy be also placed on the record of OLR No.64 of 2021 disposed
of by learned Company Judge on 10.12.2020. No Costs.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)
(B.N. KARIA, J)
Bharat
