Gujarat High Court
Wonder Water Fun Pvt Ltd vs Gujarat Industrial Investment ... on 3 February, 2014
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
C/SCA/15282/2003 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15282 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
WONDER WATER FUN PVT LTD....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD &
1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.BHARAT B. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MR DARSHAN V SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MITUL K SHELAT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MEGHA JANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date : 03/02/2014
Page 1 of 6
C/SCA/15282/2003 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by M/s Wonder Water Fun Private Limited challenging the action of respondent no.1, viz. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Limited. Short facts giving rise to the present litigation are set out in paras 2, 3 and 4 of the petition, which are reproduced for ready perusal.
"2. The petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.177 lakhs from the respondent corporation for setting up a new water park. The promoters of the petitioner company were to bring in equal amount by way of their own funds. However, due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner company and and the insufficient funds sanctioned by the respondent corporation the project could not be completed in time and there was cost overrun of Rs.54 lacs out of which the respondent corporation sanctioned Rs.27 lacs. The petitioner company did not draw this amount of additional loan of Rs.27 lacs though it was sanctioned.
3. The promoters of the petitioner company also incurred huge debt for bringing their own funds of Rs.177 lacs from the personal sources.
4. On 4.2.1999 the respondent corporation exercise Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/15282/2003 JUDGMENT power under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and took possession of the unit of the petitioner company."
2. Learned senior advocate Mr.Bharat B. Naik for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to page 76, viz. valuation of fixed assets of M/s Wonder Water Fun Pvt Ltd. This valuation is carried out by Gujarat Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization Limited (GITCO), Ahmedabad. It is dated nil July 1999. The learned senior advocate for the petitioner then invited attention of the Court to second valuation report, incidentally carried out by the same agency, VIZ. GITCO IN June 2001. The learned senior advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the tabular form at pages 78 and 92 respectively. At page 78 the land is shown to be of original cost of Rs.6.79 lacs, estimated value to be of Rs.11.48 lacs. Whereas, at page 92, the estimated value of the land is shown to be of Rs.6.9 lacs. Similarly, the second item - Civil Construction, on page 78, is shown as Rs.98.80 lacs and estimated value is shown as Rs.33.78 lacs. Whereas on page 92, estimated value of civil construction is put at Rs.15.o lacs. So is the case with the plant and machinery, inclusive of electrical installation, lab equipments, etc.; on page 78, original cost is put at Rs.219.88 and estimated value is put at Rs.59.0 lacs. As against that, on page 98 estimated value of plant and machinery is shown to be only Rs.16.85. Looking at the above figures, these are highly disputed Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/15282/2003 JUDGMENT facts.
3. In that view of the matter this Court is of the opinion that it will be appropriate for the petitioner to approach civil court for appropriate remedies, because, there the petitioner will get full opportunity to establish its case and can always get things valued with the intervention of the Hon'ble civil court so as to see that the realistic values of the properties are brought on record. Prima facie, the learned senior advocate is able to make out a point that the land of which original cost was Rs.6.79 lacs, and its estimated value is Rs.11.48 lacs in July 1998. Its estimated value has gone down to Rs.6.90 lacs in July 2001. But then this Court is feeling helpless in view of the fact that the Court will not have sufficient means and measures to go into all the disputed questions of facts. In view of that the petition is disposed of on this short ground. Rule is discharged with no order as to cost.
At this juncture, a request is made that ad interim relief which is granted by this Court on 14.10.20114, which reads as under:
"Rule. Though served, respondent no.2 is absent. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ad interim relief granted earlier is modified to the extent that the respondent no.2 shall not further transfer the property in question without the permission of this Court. Page 4 of 6
C/SCA/15282/2003 JUDGMENT The amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 21st October 2003, shall be returned to the petitioner. It will be open for the respondent no.2 to move this Court after filing the reply."
be continued for a period of three months so that the petitioner is able to approach the civil court, if so advised. The request is found reasonable and is granted.
Learned advocate Mr.Mitul K. Shelat appearing for respondent no.2 invited attention of the Court to order passed by this Court [Coram: D.N. Patel, J., as he then was)], the relevant part of which reads as under:
"3. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present applicant i.e. Monalisa Water Resources Pvt. Ltd. is the highest bider of the public auction of the premises in question, the auction is already over, the amount is paid and accepted by the opponent no. 2 no. 1 (original respondent no.1), the possession of the property has also been handed over to Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/15282/2003 JUDGMENT Monalisa Water Resources Pvt. Ltd., the opponent no. 2 (original respondent no.1) is hereby directed to execute sale deed in favour of the applicant Monalisa Water Resources Pvt. Ltd. on a condition that the applicant Monalisa Water Resources Pvt. Ltd. shall not transfer,in any manner, the premises to a third party without obtaining prior permission of this Court. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs."
At the request of the learned senior advocate for the petitioner it is clarified that the Court has not examined the merits of the matter and it is for the civil court to examine the facts of the matter and decide in accordance with law, independently, after hearing both the parties.
(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) karim Page 6 of 6