JAYANTI GOBINDRAM JAGTIANI Vs. ILAC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition pertains to the year 1988. Inspite of notice of hearing having been served on the respondents and that a copy of this petition was served on the Official Liquidator, the Official Liquidator of Ilac Limited refused to participate in the hearing of this writ petition by telling the Advocate of the petitioners that they should file a petition for venting out their grievances before the Bench of the Gujarat High Court where the winding up proceeding is going on in context with respondent No. 1 company which is under the process of winding up. As this petition pertains to the year 1988, this petition has been finally heard and is being decided by this judgment finally treating the respondents ex parte in view of the facts mentioned above.

(2.) MR. Bharucha, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that Single Bench of Small Causes Court dismissed Rgular Eviction Suit No. 1182/4122 of 1979 holding that if the said petition is allowed and respondent Ilac Limited has been evicted from the suit shop, there would be greater hardship to the said respondent in comparison to the petitioners. The petitioners are also assailing the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of Small Causes Court which dismissed their appeal which was meant for challenging the said judgment and order passed by the Single Bench of Small Causes Court. Mr. Bharucha submitted that now since the company has gone in liquidation and winding up proceeding is going on, the point of hardship to the respondents loses all its significance. In this context, he pointed out that the Single Bench of Small Causes Court had pointed out that the petitioner No. 2 Mrs. Savitri Mohanlal Thacker did not have the sufficient experience and knowledge of conducting the business of preparing and selling ready-made dresses for which she wanted to have the vacant possession of the suit shop. While advancing his submissions on this point, he made reference to the observations made by the learned Single Judge which have been accepted, upheld by the Division Bench of Small Causes Court which dismissed the appeal referred by the present petitioners.

(3.) SHRI Bharucha also submitted that it is not necessary for the petitioners to file a petition in Gujarat High Court before the Bench which is dealing with the winding up proceedings in connection with the liquidation and winding up of the respondent No. 1 limited company because so far as the present matter is concerned, no assets belonging to such company has been involved. He submitted that had there been a point touching the liquidation of assets of the respondent company, then there could have been some meaning to the opinion expressed by the Official Liquidator and Assignee appointed by the Bench of the Gujarat High Court having session over the said liquidation proceedings. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of (Harbans Lal Sharma v. Chemical Vessels Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.) reported in 1989 Company Cases (P and H) 507.