Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISESLTD.& ORS versus PRAKASH CHANDRA ARYA

Supreme Court Cases

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISESLTD.& ORS V. PRAKASH CHANDRA ARYA [1996] RD-SC 1634 (18 December 1996)

K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

O R D E R Leave granted This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, made on November 29,1996 in G.A. No.3616/96. We decline to go to into the merits of the matter. Suffice it to interfere with the order of the learned single judge appointing a Receiver.

When the matter was mentioned in the Chief Court for early hearing, this Court passed an order on December 4, 1996 thus| "Permission to make the Receiver a party respondent granted. Notice will go to the Receiver. Dasti service permitted. There will be an-interim order directing the Receiver not to part with the possession of the premises to anyone till further orders. List the matter on 18.12.1996." Parties have filed their respective affidavits and counter-affidavits. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants, they pointed out certain changes in the circumstances on the basis of which Shri Dipankar Gupta, learned senior counsel, sought to content that there is a Memo of understanding before the BIFR in which one O.P. Mall and Associates undertook to revive the sick industry of the defendant-tenant. If the said agency is permitted to revive the sick industry to work under the direction and control of the Receiver, it may not cause any impediment to the interest of the respondent-landlord. The said stand was disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. In that view of the matter, we think that it may not be desirable at this stage to go into the question. It would be open to the parties to place the entire material before the Division Bench which would go into the matter on merits and decide according to law.

In view of the fact that the industry requires to be revived, we think that it would be expedient that the appeal pending before the Division Bench is disposed of expeditiously. Accordingly, we request the learned Chief Justice to direct G.A. No. 3616/96 and the connected Appeal APOT No.626/96 to be posted before appropriate Division Bench for final disposal preferably on any date between 6th January, 1997 and 9th January, 1997.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.