Gujarat High Court

Ramanlal Lilachand Shah vs Gujarat Industrial Investment ... on 24 September, 2025

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                                  C/SCA/13234/2025                             ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13234 of 2025
                        ==========================================================
                                         RAMANLAL LILACHAND SHAH & ANR.
                                                      Versus
                               GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR AS VAKIL(962) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
                        MR PARTH H SALUJA(13326) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
                        MR RD DAVE(264) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                        ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
                                SUNITA AGARWAL
                                and
                                HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

                                                           Date : 24/09/2025

                                                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY)

1. Heard Mr. Apurv S. Vakil, learned advocate with Mr. Parth

H. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. R.

D. Dave, learned a.dvocate for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present proceedings is

as under:-

2.1 The Respondent herein, namely the Gujarat Industrial

Investment Corporation Limited (for short, "GIIC"),

instituted Civil Suit No. 2782 of 2004 against the present

Petitioners. The said suit was filed for recovery of an

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13234/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

amount of Rs. 9,65,69,685.08, being the alleged

outstanding dues as on 01.06.2004, together with future

interest calculated at the rate of 18.5% per annum until

realization. Along with the relief of monetary recovery,

GIIC also sought costs, charges, and expenses from the

date of institution of the suit, and further prayed for a

decree of permanent injunction restraining the Petitioners

from disposing of, encumbering, or creating third-party

interests in respect of their properties.

2.2 The aforesaid Suit came to be renumbered as

Commercial Civil Suit No. 589 of 2021. The Commercial

Court, upon adjudication, by its judgment and decree dated

29.04.2023, decreed the suit in favour of GIIC. The

Petitioners were held jointly and severally liable to pay the

decretal amount of Rs. 9,65,69,685.08 with pendente lite

and future interest at 18% per annum from the date of

filing until realization. In addition, the Court awarded costs

quantified at Rs. 5,59,848/- in favour of GIIC.

2.3 Being dissatisfied with the decree, the Petitioners

preferred First Appeal No. 3487 of 2023 before this Court.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13234/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

By judgment dated 10.06.2024, this Court dismissed the

appeal and thereby affirmed the decree of the Commercial

Court. Consequent to dismissal of the appeal, the

Respondent-GIIC initiated execution proceedings. An

Execution Petition came to be filed on or about 30.09.2024

before the competent Executing Court, praying, inter alia,

for enforcement of the judgment and decree dated

29.04.2023. The Executing Court, vide order dated

23.10.2024, admitted the execution proceedings, issued

notice to the Petitioners, and made the matter returnable

on 18.12.2024.

2.4 The Petitioners entered appearance before the

Executing Court on 18.01.2025 and sought time to engage

counsel for their representation. Meanwhile, the

Respondent-GIIC, by application dated 27.01.2025, prayed

for issuance of an attachment warrant against the movable

and immovable assets of the Petitioners, including their

residence. To this, the Petitioners filed their Objections

dated 12.02.2025.

2.5 By order dated 17.03.2025, the Executing Court rejected

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13234/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

the Objections filed by the Petitioners and allowed GIIC's

application for attachment. Consequently, warrants of

attachment were ordered to be issued against the

Petitioners' properties as prayed. It appears that upon

learning of the said order, Petitioner No. 1 informed GIIC

authorities, by communication dated 02.04.2025, about his

temporary absence from his residence until 10.04.2025.

2.6 Thereafter, the Respondent-GIIC preferred an

application dated 13.05.2025 under Section 51 read with

Order XXI Rule 30 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC), praying for issuance of arrest

warrant against Petitioner No. 1, namely Mr. Ramniklal L.

Shah, and for his detention in civil prison. The said

application was contested by Petitioner No. 1 by filing a

detailed Reply on 25.06.2025. Since the application dated

13.05.2025 had been filed under the signature of the

Advocate for GIIC, the same was not pressed. However,

GIIC thereafter filed a fresh application dated 27.06.2025

under the same provisions, reiterating its prayer for civil

imprisonment of Petitioner No. 1.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13234/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

2.7 The Executing Court, by the impugned judgment and

order dated 12.09.2025, allowed GIIC's application dated

27.06.2025 and directed that Petitioner No. 1 be sent to

civil prison for a period of 45 days. At the request of

learned counsel for the Petitioners, the Court suspended

the operation of the said order for a period of 10 days, i.e.,

until 22.09.2025.

3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and

order dated 12.09.2025, the Petitioners by invoking the

supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India has preferred this petition with

the following prayers:-

"(A) to quash and set aside the judgement and order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by the Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below Application dated 27.06.2025 (Exhibit-19) in Execution Petition No.74 of 2024 and to dismiss the Application dated 27.06.2025 (Exhibit-19);

(B) to stay, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the operation, implementation and execution of the judgement and order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by the Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below Application dated 27.06.2025 (Exhibit-19) in Execution Petition No.74 of 2024;

(C) to provide for the cost of the present Special Civil Application;

(D) to pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13234/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

4. Mr.Apurv S. Vakil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioners primarily submitted that the factum of mere

filing of GSTR forms as the Petitioner No.1 is running a

business in the name of Jeev Pharmaceuticals cannot be relied

upon to conclude that the Petitioner No.1 has misled the

Executing Court. The Petitioner No. 1 is running a business at

the age of 69 for his own survival and the survival of his wife-

Petitioner No.2 who is a homemaker. In so far as the figure of

turnover of Rs.45 lakhs to Rs.1.5 crores is concerned, the

same is not reflected in the GSTR forms as erroneously

observed by the Executing Court but is reflecting on the

website of 'India Mart'. The Petitioners submit that what is

reflected on the website of 'India Mart' does not have any

evidentiary value. In any event, the figure of Rs.45 lakhs to

Rs.1.5 crores is the alleged 'turn-over' of the sole

proprietorship concern of the Petitioner No.1. The said

alleged turnover has been treated as being akin to income by

the Executing Court. In fact, the Petitioner No.1 has vide List

(Exh.22) dated 05.07.2025 produced the Income Tax Return

filed by the Petitioner No.1 for Financial Year 2023-2024

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13234/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

which shows a total income of Rs.4,71,430/-. The Executing

Court, however, has not considered, much less referred to the

said Income Tax Return.

4.1 He further submitted that the records would indicate

that the petitioner aged more than 69 years has several

ailments and it would be inequitable for the petitioner to be

sent to civil prison due to his persistent ill health which is well

documented.

4.2 Mr.Vakil, learned advocate lastly submitted by placing

reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Jolly George Varghese and another Vs. The Bank

of Cochin reported in (1980) 2 SCC 360 that since the

petitioner is admittedly unable to pay his debts, the petitioner

should not be sent to the civil prison as held by the Hon'ble

Apex Court by interpreting the proviso to Section 51 of the

CPC.

5. Section 51 of the CPC reads as under :-

"51. Powers of Court to enforce execution.--Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree--

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13234/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

(a) by delivery of any property specifically decreed;

(b) by attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of any property;

(c) by arrest and detention in prison 3 [for such period not exceeding the period specified in section 58, where arrest and detention is permissible under that section];

(d) by appointing a receiver; or

(e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require:

[Provided that, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the Court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied--

(a) that the judgment-debtor, with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree,--

(i) is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or

(ii) has, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed, or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property, or

(b) that the judgment-debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same, or

(c) that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account.

Explanation. --In the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purposes of clause (b), there shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force, is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree.]"

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13234/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

6. Having heard Mr. Vakil at great length and having been

taken through the records of the case, we are unable to agree

with Mr. Vakil due to the following reasons:-

i. On perusal of the medical records at page Nos.

'47' to '104' of the paper-book supplied, we find

that after a successful coronary intervention in the

year 2012, the petitioner has some joint pain and

diabetes type 2. There is nothing which is

emergent or alarming which requires immediate

hospitalisation or that, the petitioner's health can

be said to be so morbid that he is non-ambulatory.

ii. From the Income-tax return for the Assessment

Year 2024-25 filed on 28.12.2024 at Page Nos.

'109' to '112' of the paper-book, it will be seen

that the turnover of the petitioner is

Rs.72,60,070/-. The perusal of the data from the

website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the

online details of the petitioner's proprietory firm

as reflected on the website of "India Mart" and the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13234/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

search report on the GST Portal of Jeev

Pharmaceuticals would show that the petitioner is

in active business with a decent turnover.

iii. The perusal of the impugned order discloses that

the petitioner has 33 other cases filed by the

financial institutions against him in which claims

towards dues of almost Rs.100 Crores are

outstanding against the petitioner. In view of the

aforesaid circumstances, the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Jolly Varghese (Supra) is

wholly inapplicable to the petitioner's case.

Therefore, this is not a case where the petitioner

can be said to be entitled to an equitable relief.

iv. The learned Commercial Court has carefully

considered the applicability of the provision of

Section 51 read with Order XXI Rule 37 of the CPC

and has rightly concluded that the petitioner No.1

in collusion with the third party has taken further

loan on the property mortgaged with the

respondent-Bank and therefore, has committed an

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13234/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

act of bad faith in relation to his property thereby

clearly falling within the Clause (a)(ii) of the

proviso to Section 51 of the CPC.