GIRISHCHANDRA MANUBHAI PATEL Vs. VEDICA PROCON PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 6168 of 2015, Judgment Date: Aug 13, 2015

                                                              Non-Reportable

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6168 OF 2015
                    (Arising out of Special Leave Petition
                          (Civil) No.22176 of 2015)

Girishchandra Manubhai Patel                                  ...  Appellant
 
                                  Versus

Vedica Procon Private Limited & Others                       …  Respondents







                               J U D G M E N T



Chelameswar, J.



1.    Leave granted.

2.    The instant appeal is filed by a person who claims to be the owner  of
extent of 1 Acre and 22 Guntas of land, which according to him was given  on
lease to the company in liquidation.  He  filed  a  Civil  Application  (OJ)
No.594 of 2014 in O.J. Appeal No.36 of 2014 (subject matter of  SLP  No.2198
of 2015) praying that he may be permitted to join  as  party  respondent  in
the said OJ Appeal No.36 of 2014.

3.    The High Court while rejecting the application observed as follows:

“At this stage, it is required to be noted  that  as  such,  as  substantive
application filed by the applicant being OJCA  No.327  of  2013  is  pending
before the Company Court and the rights of the applicant,  if  any,  in  the
land in question and/or the contentions on behalf of the applicant  are  yet
to be considered by the learned Company Court.  … However,  the  same  shall
be without prejudice to the right and contentions of the respective  parties
in the pending OJCA No.327 of 2013 and same may be considered in  accordance
with law and on its own merits. ,..”

It was also noted that:

“Shri Dave, learned senior Counsel appearing  on  behalf  of  applicant  has
categorically stated at the bar that as such, applicant  is  not  averse  to
the sale of the property of the company in liquidation.”



4.    In the circumstances, we do  not  think  it  necessary  to  grant  any
relief to the appellant herein as his interest, if any, is protected by  the
impugned  order  herein.   The  appellant   would   be   entitled   to   the
consequential reliefs i.e. if the appellant  succeeds  in  establishing  his
right or title or interest in any part of  the  property  which  is  subject
matter of sale in dispute, he would be entitled  to  appropriate  amount  in
accordance with law from out of the sale proceeds.

5.    The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.



                                                             ….………………………….J.
                                                             (J.
                                                               Chelameswar)



                                                             …….……………………….J.
                                                      (Abhay Manohar Sapre)

New Delhi;
August 13, 2015


-----------------------
3