C.W.P. No.7559 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7559 of 2010 Date of Decision.28.04.2010 Balwant Kaur w/o Gurdev Singh ........Petitioner Versus Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. Udyog Bhawan, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Director and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner through the writ petition seeks for a restraint of conversion of Plot No.B4 to B9 at Focal Point, Nabha from leasehold to free-hold and further transferring the plot in the name of respondent Nos.5 to 7 by the 4th respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner that she was an ex-director of the company and the company owes large sums of money to respondent Nos.1 to 3. According to him, there is a clause in the lease providing for restraint against conversion without discharging the liabilities in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. In my view, if any such sale takes place, it could only be that the creditors may not be bound by such a transaction of sale and an ex-director does not have locus standi to C.W.P. No.7559 of 2010 -2- complain of an action of sale by the 4th respondent. If the petitioner has bound himself by any personal guarantee for the loan obtained by the company, it is independent of any liability that the company would bear by its decision to transfer property in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7. The fetter on alienation shall not normally be done and the petitioner cannot have his grievance redressed through a writ petition. It is essentially a dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the 4th respondent-company on the other. There is no State interest involved in the transactions and an intervention through a writ remedy is inappropriate. 2. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 28, 2010 Pankaj*