COMA/395/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD COMPANY APPLICATION No. 395 of 2008 In OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT No. 155 of 2006 In OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT No. 118 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Sd/- ====================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 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 ? NO 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ====================================== SARTHAK INDUSTRIES LTD. - Applicant Versus O L OF SHREE VALLABH GLASS WORKS LTD. (IN LIQN) & 1 - Respondents ====================================== Appearance : MR NK PAHWA for Applicant. MS AMEE YAJNIK for Official Liquidator. COMA/395/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT MR CHIRAG B PATEL for Respondent No. 2. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date : 06/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The applicant has taken out this Judge's summons praying for the direction to the respondent No.2 Bank to forthwith remove its attachment from the revenue records in respect of Lot No. IV being land bearing Survey No.349/1, 2 & 3 and Survey No.353 situated at village Bhoi, behind and adjoining factory area, Anand, sale in respect of which has been confirmed in favour of the applicant by an order dated 15.12.2006 passed by this Court in OLR No. 155 of 2006. 2. This Court has admitted the petition on 15.07.2008. 3. Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 and he has placed on record a letter dated 24.08.2008 wherein it is stated that the dues of the Bank have been paid and the Bank has no objection if the attachment of the Bank is removed over the property in question. COMA/395/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT 4. From the revenue records, it appears that attachment is only of the respondent No.2 Bank and the respondent No.2 Bank has agreed before the Court that it has no objection if the attachment is removed. In view of the above statement, the Court hereby directs the respondent No.2 to intimate to the revenue authorities to remove the attachment forthwith. Even otherwise, this Court has already taken the view in Company Application No.554 of 2007 to the effect that if the dues of the Company in liquidation are pertaining to the period of pre-liquidation, the auction purchasers are not liable to discharge the said liabilities. 5. Accordingly, the reliefs prayed for in the present application are hereby granted. This application is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs. Sd/- [K. A. PUJ, J.] Savariya