Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HARSHA DEVANI, A.S. SUPEHIA, JJ.
Anilkumar Vaikuthlal Patel – Appellant
Versus
O.L.OF A'BAD Jubili Spinning & Mfg. Mills Co. & others – Respondents
R/O.J.APPEAL NO. 1 of 2003, In R/Company Application No. 16 of 1999, [Original Civil Application (OJ) No. 358 of 2016] With Civil Application (OJ) No. 1 to 4 of 2016
Decided on : 26-03-2020
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Companies Act - section 529A - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - section 107 - Appeal matters were earlier heard by this Bench and vide order court had posted matter for dictation of judgment - On that day it was not possible to dictate judgment in view of regular board as fact that simultaneously while this matter was being heard court was also hearing voluminous criminal appeals in one of biggest riot cases arising out of massacres that took place in aftermath of burning of a coach of Sabarmati Express during second session on a day to day basis in view thereof it was not possible to deliver judgment in this case - General Secretary of Textile Labor Association made a mention before court that judgment in case may either be dictated or matter may be released and sent to regular bench - Appellant strongly objected to request made by counsel for respondents and submitted that when court has heard matter at length and is ready to proceed with dictation of judgment request should not be accepted - Court has further been submitted that no written application has been filed on affidavit giving details about number of workers - Appellants therefore does not appear to be justified in seeking adjournments in other cases on ground of pendency of this case - Thus no valid ground has been made out for releasing matter at stage of judgment - Applicant challenged said order before Supreme Court in Civil Appeal - Held, Court decision of Supreme Court has been held that a lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease - Court was accordingly contended that sub-lease assignment transfer in favor of Jubilee Mills is unlawful because it violates provisions of the Registration Act as well as the Transfer of Property Act because it is not registered - it also violates the provisions of Rent Act because Calico Limited itself was a sub-lessee and the original lessee was Manufacturing Company which assigned it to Calico Limited - Therefore status of Calico Limited was that of a sub-lessee and a sub lessee cannot further sub-let provisions of Rent Act - Court was called upon to decide question raised before me - In case before Supreme Court date of commencement of lease was not available nor was it claimed on behalf of liquidator that lease was of long duration was also an agreed position that for purpose of winding up or for business of Company liquidator did not need premises - Applicant filed an affidavit has stated that his grandmother had filed Company Application and has further referred to prayers made in said application - It is further stated that by registered lease - Order Accordingly (Para 19)
Facts of the Case:
Criminal appeals in one of the biggest riot cases arising out of the massacres that took place in the aftermath of the burning of a coach of the Sabarmati Express, during the second session on a day to day basis, in view thereof, it was not possible to deliver the judgment in this case. The summer vacation commenced on 6th May, 2017 and with effect from 5th June, 2017 there was a change in the roster whereupon the criminal appeals were heard for the whole day.
Finding of the Court:
Court decision of Supreme Court has been held that a lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease - Court was accordingly contended that sub-lease assignment transfer in favor of Jubilee Mills is unlawful because it violates provisions of the Registration Act as well as the Transfer of Property Act because it is not registered - it also violates the provisions of Rent Act because Calico Limited itself was a sub-lessee and the original lessee was Manufacturing Company which assigned it to Calico Limited - Therefore status of Calico Limited was that of a sub-lessee and a sub lessee cannot further sub-let provisions of Rent Act - Court was called upon to decide question raised before me - In case before Supreme Court date of commencement of lease was not available nor was it claimed on behalf of liquidator that lease was of long duration was also an agreed position that for purpose of winding up or for business of Company liquidator did not need premises - Applicant filed an affidavit has stated that his grandmother had filed Company Application and has further referred to prayers made in said application - It is further stated that by registered lease.
Result: Order Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
HARSHA DEVANI, J.
1. These matters were earlier heard by this Bench and vide order dated 4.4.2017, the court had posted the matter for dictation of judgment on 17.4.2017. On 16.2.2018, this court passed the following order:-
2. It may be noted that the record of this appeal is also quite voluminous and as referred to earlier, the hearing went on for several days. The court has minutely recorded the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned counsel for the parties have also submitted written submissions and hence, despite the delay, there was no difficulty on the part of the court in dictating the judgment. The matters were posted for dictation of judgment today, that is, on 16th February, 2018.
3. When the matters were called out for dictation, Mr. D.S. Vasavada, learned advocate for the Textile Labour Association, expressed reservations about the court dictating the judgment and vehemently submitted that the matter be released and be sent before the regular bench. The reason put forth for making such request is that in the intervening period, that is, from the time when the matter was heard, till the matter came to be listed for dictation, several workers have passed away and further that several matters have been remanded by the Supreme Court and in view of the pendency of this matter, the learned advocate for the appellants has been requesting the concerned Benches not to take up the matter on the ground that similar issues are involved in this case. Though there was strong objection to such request by Mr. M.I. Hava, learned advocate for the appellant, the learned advocate for the Textile Labour Association was insistent that the matter be released. What was more perturbing was that the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator also quite vocally supported such request. It may be noted that except for the two grounds stated hereinabove, the learned counsel have not voiced any other objection to the court proceeding further and delivering the judgment in this case.
4. On the other hand, Mr. M. I. Hava, learned advocate for the appellant, strongly objected to the request made by the learned counsel for the respondents and submitted that when the court has heard the matter at length and is ready to proceed with the dictation of the judgment, such request should not be accepted. It has further been submitted
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
