Gujarat High Court
Kamlesh Trading Company(Throu ... vs Nilesh Bajranglal Bansal on 23 February, 2021
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/MCA/136/2019 ORDER
IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC.CIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 136 of 2019
In R/COMPANYPETITIONNO. 204 of 2009
With
R/COMPANYPETITIONNO. 204 of 2009
With
R/COMPANYAPPLICATIONNO. 67 of 2016
In
COMPANYPETITIONNO. 204 of 2009
==========================================================
KAMLESHTRADINGCOMPANY(THROUPROPRIETOR),KAMLESHKUMARMATURAM JAIN Versus NILESHBAJRANGLALBANSAL& 2 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
MRSANJAYR GUPTA(341)for the Applicant(s)No. 1 for the Opponent(s)No. 4 MRVISHWASK SHAH(5364)for the Opponent(s)No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Date: 23/02/2021 ORALORDER ORDER IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 136 of 2019 1 This is an application filed by the original petitioner for non compliance / breach of the order dated 11.07.2011 passed in Company Petition No. 204 of 2009, which reads as under:
"1. By order dated 4th July 2011, the petitioner was directed, having regard to the grievance that the respondent - company is closed down and the process issued earlier could not be served until now that the petitioner - company will supply the addresses of the factory premises of the respondent - company Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 24 06:14:10 IST 2021 C/MCA/136/2019 ORDER in addition to the address of the registered office of the respondent - company. It was further directed that after the two addresses were supplied, the process may be served through the bailiff of the Civil Court and also through the concerned Police Station.
2. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner - company supplied the address of the factory premises stating that the factory premises of the respondent - company is at Shahwadi, Narol. Accordingly, the process was issued and sought to be served at both the addresses I.e. at registered office and factory premises, through bailiff as well as through the Police Station.
3. Today, the respective reports are received and it is stated that when the process was sought to be served at the factory premises, it was found to be closed and as per the statement recorded by the Police, the factory premises were closed since few months. One of the reports of the police authority states that the copy of the notice was affixed at the Gate of the factory premises. Likewise, the Manager of the complex where the registered office at the respondent - company is situated, stated before the police authority that the premises are occupied by some other tenant who has also kept the premises closed since last six months, though the rent was paid until 2012 and now the petitioner - company was not on the record of the complex as occupier of the premises in question. In short, by either mode the process has not been served and the same has been returned by police authority and the bailiff with remarks of unserved on account of the fact that the premises were found closed.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects and facts also, on earlier occasion the process could not be served and having regard to the fact that by order dated 24 th January 2011, substituted service was granted, and having regard to the fact that affidavit of substituted service has been filed and that in spite of the aforesaid attempts, the respondent - company has not entered appearance and the statutory notice was also not replied as per the allegations of the petitioner - company, the petition is ordered to be admitted, however, the advertisement is differed. In the meanwhile, it is also directed that until further order, the respondent shall not alienate the property of the company in any manner whatsoever. The hearing of the Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 24 06:14:10 IST 2021 C/MCA/136/2019 ORDER petition is adjourned to 16th August, 2011."
2 Reading of the order makes it evident it was a direction that the respondent shall not alienate the property of the company in any manner whatsoever. Reading of the affidavitinreply filed by the respondent and with the sale deeds on record, what appears is that the property that was alienated was of the personal ownership of the respondents and not in the name of the Company.
3 In view of that, no case of willful disobedience has been made out. The miscellaneous civil application is disposed of, accordingly.
(BIRENVAISHNAV,J) BIMAL ORDER IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 67 of 2016 It appears from reading the order sheets since 2016 that Mr.Devendra G Rana, learned advocate, has either not appeared or has sought adjournments.
Stand over to 23.04.2021, on which date, in case no one appears on his behalf, appropriate orders will be passed.
(BIRENVAISHNAV,J) BIMAL Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 24 06:14:10 IST 2021