Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Prakash Chandra Arya
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.16937 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23503 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.1996 of the Calcutta High Court in G.A.No. 3616 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23503 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.1996 of the Calcutta High Court in G.A.No. 3616 of 1996)
Petitioner: Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. & Ors.
Respondent: Prakash Chandra Arya
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.16937 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23503 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.1996 of the Calcutta High Court in G.A.No. 3616 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23503 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.1996 of the Calcutta High Court in G.A.No. 3616 of 1996)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & G.B.PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 18, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. Dipankar Gupta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Utpal Majmudar, Ms. Nalini Tripathi, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Mr. G.S. Chatterjee, Mr. Jishu Saha, Mr. Raja Chatterjee and Mr. Sandeep Agarwal, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
PROCEDURAL LAW
Receiver appointed by High Court – Sick industry under B.I.F.R. – Whether revival process be impeded by receiver – Held not desir-able to go into the question and High Court directed to go into the matter at early date.
Receiver appointed by High Court – Sick industry under B.I.F.R. – Whether revival process be impeded by receiver – Held not desir-able to go into the question and High Court directed to go into the matter at early date.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. 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 into the merits of the matter. Suffice it to state that pending appeal, the Division Bench had declined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge appointing a Receiver. When the matter was men-tioned 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 ad-interim order directing the Receiver not to part with the possession of the premises to anyone till further or-ders. List the matter on 18.12.1996.”
3. Parties have filed their respective affidavits and counter-affidavits. The Receiver also was served but has not filed the affidavit. 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 contend 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.
4. 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. Accord-ingly, 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.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. 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 into the merits of the matter. Suffice it to state that pending appeal, the Division Bench had declined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge appointing a Receiver. When the matter was men-tioned 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 ad-interim order directing the Receiver not to part with the possession of the premises to anyone till further or-ders. List the matter on 18.12.1996.”
3. Parties have filed their respective affidavits and counter-affidavits. The Receiver also was served but has not filed the affidavit. 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 contend 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.
4. 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. Accord-ingly, 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.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
