UDAY RAMCHANDRA PURANDARE Versus SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD.
MR SHIVANG M SHAH for the PETITIONER(s) No. ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR NIRZAR S DESAI for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.P. PATEL Date : 22/02/2019 IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER)
1. In view of the fact that though the implementation, operation of impugned judgment and decree came to be suspended by concerned learned trial court vide order dated 13.3.2018 and the said order (i.e. order suspending the implementation and operation of the judgment) subsequently came to be extended vide order dated 11.4.2018.
2. It is claimed that while the orders dated 13.3.2018 and 11.4.2018 were in operation, the concerned officer of the Opponent - Corporation submitted an application along with judgment and Page 1 of 3 C/FA/1782/2018 IA ORDER decree, to the revenue authority, and there upon, Entry No.2393 came to be passed.
3. It is also relevant to note that, in the meanwhile, the Applicant herein had submitted before this court, Appeal against the judgment and order.
4. The Appeal came to be registered as Appeal No. 1782/2018. Along with the Appeal the Applicant also filed an Application seeking interim relief against the impugned judgment and order.
5. This court, vide order dated 11.5.2018 stayed the execution of decree on the condition that the Appellant shall deposit Rs.1.25 Crore within a period of six months.
6. The Applicant has declared that it has deposited the said amount.
7. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.6.2018, the relief granted under order dated 11.5.2018 came to be confirmed.
8. The Applicant - Appellant, before, submitting the present Application, approached the competent authority against Entry No. 2393. However, the said authority declined to entertain the appeal.
9. The Applicant claims that it requested the present Respondent - Nigam to take steps to get the entry cancelled by submitting appropriate application in view of the fact that the judgment and decree are stayed.
10. However, on one ground or other, the concerned officer of the Page 2 of 3 C/FA/1782/2018 IA ORDER Respondent - Nigam has avoided to submit / not submitted such application and has not taken any steps to get the entry cancelled or even suspended. Actually, by adjourning present proceeding on 3 to 4 occasions, this court also granted opportunity to the officer / Nigam to take steps to give effect to interim order passed by the court. However, the Nigam / officer have not taken any step.
11.In this view of the matter, we consider it appropriate to call for explanation from the concerned officer of Respondent No.1, who has failed to take steps in light of the orders dated 13.2.2018 and 11.4.2018 passed by the learned trial court and the orders dated 11.5.2018 and 27.6.2018 passed by this court.
12.The concerned officer shall remain present before the court and offer an explanation, as to why any steps, pursuant to above mentioned orders passed after the judgment and decree, have not been taken.
S.O. to 8.3.2019.
(K.M.THAKER, J) (V. P. PATEL,J) J.N. W Page 3 of 3