Reserved On : 17/12/2025 Pronounced On : 10/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9913 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

==========================================================

GORDON JOHN TEXTILES LTD Versus GHCL LTD & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR NINAD P SHAH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR HEMANG M SHAH(5399) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR UNMESH SHUKLA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS NANCY SONI WITH MS AISHWARYA REDDY FOR M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA(949) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR AMAR N BHATT(160) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

CAV JUDGMENT

1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – decree holder has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 31^st March, 2012 passed in Execution Petition No.121 of 2010 below Exh.1 by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned City Civil Court was pleased to dismiss the application for execution of a foreign decree.

2. Brief facts of the present case are stated as under:

2.1 The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of England, whereas respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Both the companies are engaged in the business of textile. 2.2 One M/s.Textile & Design Ltd. Company which is incorporated and registered under the laws of England & Wales, then known as Rosebys Operations Ltd., approached the petitioner for supply of certain textile materials.

2.3 Payment in respect of the supplies to be made by the petitioner was guaranteed by the respondent No.1 herein. Accordingly, by a Deed of Guarantee dated 30^th May, 2008 respondent No.1 assured that all the supplies made by the petitioner to the said Rosebys Operations Ltd.

would be paid for.

2.4 The petitioner supplied textile materials to M/s.Rosebys Operations Ltd.

Amounting to 05,65,050.91 Pound. The said Rosebys Operations Ltd. paid amount of 02.00 lakh Pound and the balance amount of 03,65,050.91 Pound remained unpaid.

2.5 As M/s.Rosebys Operations Ltd. Failed and neglected to make payment for the remaining amount, petitioner through its lawyer, addressed a letter dated 11^th December, 2008 to the respondent No.1 calling upon it to pay the outstanding dues in terms of the Deed of Guarantee dated 30^th May, 2008.

2.6 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 also failed and neglected to make payment despite execution of Guarantee Deed. Consequently, on 22^nd January, 2009, the petitioner, having no alternative, filed Claim No.9MA90014 before the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Manchester, for recovery of the unpaid amount of 03,65,050.91 Pound. By judgment dated 16^th February, 2009, the respondent No.1 herein was ordered to pay a sum of 03,72,920.62 Pound to the petitioner. Since the said judgment was passed in default, petitioner filed application under the provisions of Rule 13.3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules of 1998 before the same court seeking setting aside the default judgment and adjudicate the matter on merits.

2.7 The said application of the petitioner was allowed and by judgment dated 07^th July, 2009, the matter was decided on merits. By the said judgment, respondent No.1 herein was ordered to pay 03,72,920.62 Pound including cost of 01,660 Pound.

2.8 On 03^rd March, 2010, the petitioner filed Execution Petition No.121 of 2010 before learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, for execution of foreign decree dated 07^th July, 2009.

2.9 As the execution petition was not taken up for expeditious hearing, petitioner approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.7009 of 2011 for appropriate direction for early disposal of the exe