Gujarat High Court
Anandiben Kaushikkumar Patel & 4 vs Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd & ... on 16 June, 2017
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sonia Gokani
C/MCA/2358/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER) NO. 2358
of 2016
In CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12965 of 2014
In FIRST APPEAL NO. 3823 of 2014
==========================================================
ANANDIBEN KAUSHIKKUMAR PATEL & 4....Applicant(s)
Versus
UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD & 3....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KV SHELAT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 5
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Opponent(s) No. 2 - 4
MR DIPAK R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s) No. 2 - 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 16/06/2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. This application is filed by the appellant seeking modification in our order dated 16.02.2015 in Civil Application No.12965 of 2014. The applicant had prayed for stay against execution of the decree passed by the Trial Court. While granting conditional stay, we had further clarified as under:
"3. Under the circumstances, while confirming the stay against execution and operation of Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Mon Aug 14 03:53:46 IST 2017 C/MCA/2358/2016 ORDER the impugned judgment qua the applicant alone, it is further clarified that this order shall not preclude the opponent No.1Electricity Company from executing the decree against the rest of the defendants, nor will it preclude the electricity company from recovering the decreetal sum with interest by selling, of course in accordance with law, the right, title and interest of the partnership and all its partners including the present applicant in the said industrial shed situated at Plot No.53, G.I.D.C., Viramgam."
2. Through this application, the applicant contends that it was not Plot No.53 of G.I.D.C. but Plot No.54 from where the partnership firm Shri Umiya Steel operated and therefore, the said clarification may be recalled.
3. Having heard learned advocates of the parties, we find it is unnecessary to specify the exact plot number which the electricity company can seek to sale for satisfaction of the decree against the partnership firm or the partners. Under the circumstances, in substitution of para 3 of the order dated 16.02.2015, it is provided as under:
"3. Under the circumstances while confirming the stay against the execution and operation of the impugned judgment qua the applicant alone, it is further clarified that this order shall not preclude the opponent no.1 Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Mon Aug 14 03:53:46 IST 2017 C/MCA/2358/2016 ORDER Electricity Company from executing the decree against the rest of the defendants in accordance with law including by selling any of the properties of the partnership or the remaining partners."
4. Misc. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) ANKIT Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Mon Aug 14 03:53:46 IST 2017