( 1 ) RULE. Learned advocate Mr. Hitesh N. Dave waives service of notice of Rule for respondents. Special Civil Application no. 17526 of 2005 has been preferred against the common order dated 29th April, 2005 in Revision Application Nos. 109 to 111 of 2005 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad and Special Civil Application nos. 17527 and 17528 of 2005 have been preferred against the order dated 29. 3. 2005 passed by the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad in Summary Lavad suit nos. 1906 of 2004 and 1907 of 2004 whereby, the contention of the respondent Choksi Tube Co. Ltd. was accepted and it is held that as the respondent no. 1 is declared as an undertaking under The Bombay Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as The Act of 1958) and therefore, leave to defend application for the said company in Lavad Summary suits should be kept pending till the notification of the Government of Gujarat declaring the respondent no. 1 as an undertaking is in force.

( 2 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner mainly argued that the orders passed by the Tribunal and Board of Nominees are de hors the facts and law. The Tribunal and Board of Nominee have committed an error in interpreting section 4 (1) (a) (iv) of the Act of 1958. The respondent no. 1 is declared as an undertaking under the provisions of the Act of 1958 by the Government Notification dated 28th February, 2005 which has to remain in force upto 27th February, 2006. (Annexure C to the memo of the petition ). It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that there is no provision under the Act of 1958, whereby the liability of the respondent no. 1 cannot be crystalised or cannot be calculated or cannot be adjudicated upon. Crystalisation, calculation and adjudication of the right in the Lavad suits preferred by the petitioner is one thing and enforcement of such calculation or crystalisation or enforcement of adjudicated right (popularly known as a decree) is absolutely another thing. What is envisaged by the Act of 1958 is suspension of enforcement of right, privilege, obligation or liability accrued or incurred by such undertaking before it is so declared. In the present case, the Tribunal and Board of Nominees have not properly appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter and hence the orders passed by the Tribunal and Board of Nominees deserve to be quashed and set aside.

( 3 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon several judgments which will be referred to hereinafter.

( 4 ) THE learned advocate for the respondents has also relied upon the said clause, namely clause (iv) of sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act of 1958 and has submitted that any proceeding which is pending before any Court for enforcement of the right, privilege/obligation or liability against the respondent no. 1 which is already declared as an undertaking on 28th February, 2005 deserves to be suspended. No such remedy can be availed so long as notification of the Government of Gujarat is in force. The respondent no. 1 is an undertaking declared by the Government of Gujarat for a period of one year from 28th February, 2005 to 27th February, 2006 and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal and Board of Nominees are absolutely in consonance with facts and law and therefore, the petitions may be dismissed.

( 5 ) THE learned advocate for the respondents has also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Core Healthcare Ltd. vs. Standard Chartered Bank and another in Special Civil Application no. 131 of 2001 decided on 23rd January, 2001 reported in 2001 (107) COMPCAS-501-GUJ. The learned advocate for the respondents has also vehemently submitted that as per section 4 of the Act, no proceeding can be initiated against the respondent no. 1, much less, by way of Lavad suit before the Board of Nominees, all types of proceedings before any Court, Tribunal, officer or authority has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document