Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Hytaisun vs Parulben on 27 April, 2011

Author: K.S.Jhaveri

Bench: Ks Jhaveri

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/11653/2005	 3/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11653 of 2005
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
 
=========================================================

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To be
			referred to the Reporter or not ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
		
	

 

 
=========================================================

 

HYTAISUN
MAGNETICS LTD - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

PARULBEN
JAYVEER JHAVERI & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
SS PANESAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR VS SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

				Date
: 27/04/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
JUDGMENT 

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.04.2005 passed by the learned Chamber Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad inter-alia rejecting application Exh. 23 moved by the petitioner company seeking stay of Summary Suit No. 367 of 2003 filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 on the ground that the petitioner is a 'sick company' and has filed reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction(B.I.F.R) which is duly registered and pending with the B.I.F.R, New Delhi.

2. The facts of the case are that the B.I.F.R has registered the reference filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies ( Special Provisions) Act 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as SICA) as case No. 458 of 2002 on 14.11.2002. On 07.02.2003, the respondent No. 1 filed Summary Suit No. 367 of 2003 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 for recovery of Rs. 3,80,000/- before the City Civil Court,Ahmedabad. On 23.07.2004, the petitioner moved application Exh. 23 seeking stay of the Summary Suit No. 367 of 2003. On 28.04.2005, the learned Chamber Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad rejected the above Stay Application Exh. 23. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Central Government has not so far notified in the official gazette any appointed date for implementing SICA Repeal Act and the SICA Act, 1985 is still in force.

4. As a result of hearing and perusal of the document on records and considering the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner it is an admitted fact that the B.I.F.R. proceedings are not pending now.

5. It is also found that there is no notification published regarding the Repealment of the Act. The same will come into force only on publication of the same in Government Gazette. In that view of the matter, the contention of learned advocate for the petitioner that there is no notification published by B.I.F.R regarding repealment of SICA Repeal Act is required to be accepted. The observation made by the learned Judge regarding the repealment of the SICA Act is devoid of merits. However, in view of the fact that no B.I.F.R proceedings are pending, the order of the trial Court is just and proper. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

(K.S.JHAVERI,J.) pawan     Top