further application to appeal from order 176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD
MISC CIVIL APPLICATION / 2003
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO 176 OF 2003
PANKAJ S MODY ……. APPLICANT
JANMANGAL APT
40 BRAHAMAN MITRA MANDAL SOC
PALDI AHMEDABAD 380006
(PARTY IN PERSON)
VERSUS
DHANYUSHYA FINANCIAL PVT LTD
MR. JATIN JALUNDHWALA
CORE HEALTH CARE LTD
OPPOSITE DOCTOR HOUSE,PARIMAL
RLY CROSSING,AHMEDABAD 380 006
GLOBAL TRUST BANK
C.G.ROAD, AHMEDABAD ……. DEFENDANTS
FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 24-6-2003 AND FOR REVIEW OF THE MATTER ON MERITS
TO
THE HONOURABL THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
OTHER HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT
OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD.
HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT
ABOVENAMED;
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:-
1. The applicant had filed Appeal from Order 176/2003 and Civil Civil Application 3110/2003 which came up for hearing on 8th May 2003 and the Honourable judge suggested the matter required long patient hearing so as to provide effective justice while returning the exhibits (in civil suit 5827/2001) presented to him stating that the same can be furnished at the time of hearing of the matter after vacation.
2. The matter came up for hearing on 24-6-2003 and without Considering the exhibits presented on 8th May 2003 , the appeal from order as well as Civil application were dismissed.
3. The applicant most humbly prefers to submit present Review Application made under Civil Procedure code 114 that in order to facilitate clear understanding , the necessary exhibits are being submitted with in the present review application so as to reconsider the matter.
4. The applicant most humbly submits that the defendants as well as counselor appearing in CRA 25 and CRA 26/2002 has willfully ,disobeyed the directions given by the honourable judge to submit the necessary evidence on April 26, 2002 and the Chamber Court was to grant stay latest by 30th June 2002 in absence of their non filing of reply. It has to be taken on record, that the dignity, honour of the Honourable High Court gets tarnished and eroded on account of tactics employed by the defendants and the counselor and invites unhealthy practices of not honouring the high court directions.
5. The applicant has strong primaefacie case in his favour regarding Directorship as well as shareholding and the immoveable property owned by Rupmangalam Investment Private Ltd and the defendants do not have any right In the referred company.
6. The applicant most respectfully submits that the Chamber Judge Has not taken cognizance of written arguments presented on 11-3-2003 and 17-3-2003 and has passed one sided orders on 8-4-2003 and the applicant begs to submit that that these facts are taken into consideration in depth.
7. The applicant further submits that based on the written arguments submitted on 11/3/2003 and 17/3/2003 as well as the exhibits annexed herewith, the concerned defendants
(i) have failed in establishing that they continue as director of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd after the expiry of their term as additional director in accordance with provisions of Companies Act.
(ii) that they have failed to establish that they are legal shareholders
(iii) that they have failed to establish that that defendant 2 has right to accept alleged resignation of the applicant after expiry of his term as additional directorship
(iv) have failed to produce necessary statutory records in chronological order showing transition from alleged old management to them.
(iv) defendants have failed to obtain any written confirmation from the escrow persons as regards to delivery of necessary documents to them.
(v) defendants have failed to establish that necessary resolutions from legal shareholders and legal directors have obtained by producing detailed certificate from the auditors of the company.
(vi) that defendants have failed to establish that legal transfer of property owned by Rupmangalam Investment Private Ltd by specifically furnishing 37-I in relation to the property owned by Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd which shows evasion of tax and rendering the alleged transfer of property void abinitio and invalid.
(vii) that defendants have failed to establish that how constructed portion belonging exclusively to Rupmangalam Investment Pvt Ltd is owned by defendant 1.
8. The applicant most respectfully submits that applicant has been subjected to torture through police remand in December 1999 and thereby sowing the seeds of
disintegrating personal family and the applicant strongly apprehends, that in view of non-submissions of records by the defendants, the defendants are likely to resort to fresh harassment and torture methods in case the injunction is not granted and resulting into multiplicity of legal complications.
.
9. The applicant , therefore , prays that :-
(a) The Honourable Court be pleased to allow this application for recalling order dated 24-6-2003 and be further pleased to hear the Appeal from Order no 176 of 2003 with Civil Application 3110 of 2003 on merits afresh.
(b) The applicant most respectfully prays that suitable directions are given to the Chamber Court for finalizing suit in a time bound fashion to
avoid multiplicity of legal complications to the applicant.
(c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present application, the Honourable
Court be pleased to restrain the defendants from transferring or alienating the immoveable property as stated in orders passed on 31-12-2001 in the civil suit 5827/2001.
(d) Pending hearing and final disposal of this application, the defendants 1,2,3 as well as Mr. Soparkar are to be called upon to file joint reply in light of complaints filed against Mr. Soparkar to the Bar Council in September 2002 as they have deceived the High Court in CRA 25/2002 and CRA 26/2002. The complaint to the Bar Council is annexed in the form of exhibit.
(e) delay , if any, in preferring this application, be condoned in the interest of justice.
(f) be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
PLACE; AHMEDABAD
DATE: - 2003
----------------
AFFIDAVIT
I, PANKAJ SURESHCHANDRA MODY, HINDU, ADULT, RESIDENT OF AHMEDABAD , THE APPLICANT HEREBYsolemnly affirm and state on oath that what is stated hereinabove is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and I believe the same to be true and correct.
Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on this ------------day of ------- ,2003.
