OJA/46/2003 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD O.J.APPEAL No. 46 of 2003 In COMPANY APPLICATION No. 13 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH Sd/- 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 ========================================= JITENDRAKUMAR NATHALAL SHAH - Appellant Versus O.L. OF ARYODAYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD. & 2 - Opponents ========================================= Appearance : MR AJAY R MEHTA for Appellant. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for Opponent No. 1. NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 2, MR DS VASAVADA for Opponent(s) : 3 ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH and OJA/46/2003 2/4 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date : 23/10/2008 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ) 1. Aryodaya Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited was ordered to be wound up by order dated 05.05.1989 of the Company Court. The buildings and machineries of the Company in winding up were sold. When it came to sale of the leasehold rights of the Company in liquidation over the land acquired under the lease deed dated 03.11.1905, the parties claiming to be lessors challenged the right and power of the Official Liquidator to sell the leasehold rights of the Company in winding up and have contended that upon winding up order having been passed, the lessors were entitled to get back possession of lands. 2. By judgment dated 02.04.2003 passed in Company Application No.13 of 2002, the learned Company Judge rejected the above claim and held that the lease was a long term lease and the leasehold rights over the land of the Company in winding up is the assets of the Company which was put up for sale by the Official Liquidator. Aggrieved with the above judgment, the original applicants – lessors filed present OJ Appeal. On account of the interim stay granted by this Court, the leasehold land of the Company in winding up could not be sold. 3. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 14.10.2003. 4. The contentions raised on behalf of the lessors therein were OJA/46/2003 3/4 JUDGMENT also raised in OJ Appeal Nos. 65 to 67 of 2006. By our judgment dated 17.10.2008, we have rejected the contentions and dismissed the appeals of the lessors. 5. Following the aforesaid decision, the present appeal also deserves to be dismissed subject to the clarification that the Secured Creditors will provide necessary finance for payment of rent by the Official Liquidator to the lessors of the property in question, in case, the Official Liquidator is not having the adequate funds for payment of such rent to the lessors. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. [M. S. SHAH, J.] [K. A. PUJ, J.] 6. At this stage, Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant prays that the interim stay which was operating during pendency of the appeal may be continued for some time to enable the appellant to have further recourse in accordance with law. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondents oppose the request. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim stay operating during pendency of the appeal shall continue for a period of one month from today i.e. upto 23rd November, 2008 with a clarification to take all the OJA/46/2003 4/4 JUDGMENT preliminary steps required to be taken before publishing the advertisement. Sd/- [M. S. SHAH, J.] Sd/- [K. A. PUJ, J.] Savariya