Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Atmaram B. Agrawal Versus Pradeep Kumar Binani & Ors.

2014 (12) TMI 1292 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Suppression of material fact - plot in question is transferred in the name of respondent No.2 on the record of the GIDC [Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation] Held that:- There is a very thin line between suppression of material fact, and non-disclosure of a material fact. On conjoint reading of the pleadings of the petitioner in the civil suit in question and the present petition, this Court finds that, the impugned order passed by the respondent - Corporation is the consequence of the sa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

noted in 6.1 above would not have been a factor against the petitioner, but then, on the contents of the said civil suit, the petitioner could not have been granted any relief by this Court on merits, since during the pendency of the challenge to the said sale deed, the consequential order passed by the respondent Corporation cannot be interfered with. - Viewing from one more angle this Court finds that, had the civil suit been not filed at all, then neither 6.1 or 6.2 would have been a fac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Kavina, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Rashesh Sanjanwala, learned senior advocate for the respondent No.2 and Mr.R.D.Dave, learned advocate for the respondent - Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. 2. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation dated March 25/28, 2013. By the said order, the plot in question is transferred in the name of respondent No.2 on the record of the GIDC with effect from 28.03.2013. 3. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

foundation of the transaction between the parties, which led to passing of the impugned order by the Corporation, is illegal and contradictory. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of Hon ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166 to meet with the preliminary objection of the respondent (which is noted hereinafter) with regard to the suppression of material fact by t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is no reference to the said civil suit. In this regard, attention of this Court is invited to the Regular Civil Suit No.131 of 2013 filed in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat, the copy of which is placed on record by the respondent No.2. Without prejudice to this preliminary objection, it is further submitted that, even on merits the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, since what is impugned in this petition, is the order passed by the Corporation, which in substance is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

then the plot in question was to be transferred in the name of the respondent No.2. It is submitted that, the respondent No.2 has already discharged his obligation flowing from the said arrangement and thereafter when the question of transferring the said plot in his name came, the present petitioner started creating hurdles. It is submitted that, the petitioner even disowns the documents which he himself had signed to facilitate the said arrangement. It is submitted that this petition be dismis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that, the petitioner is not entitled to relief prayed for, on more than one counts, as noted here-below. 6.1 The sale deed dated 04.03.2013 (of the plot in question) is challenged by the petitioner by filing the Regular Civil Suit No.131 of 2013. It was instituted on 19.03.2013. The impugned order of the respondent-Corporation is dated March 25/28, 2013. It is the consequence of the said sal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l fact, and non-disclosure of a material fact. On conjoint reading of the pleadings of the petitioner in the civil suit in question and the present petition, this Court finds that, the impugned order passed by the respondent - Corporation is the consequence of the sale deed dated 04.03.2013 and both are inter woven aspects. For this reason the challenge to the sale deed is a material fact for the present petition. Once it is found that, challenge to the sale deed dated 04.03.2013 is a material f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

challenge to the said sale deed, the consequential order passed by the respondent Corporation cannot be interfered with. 6.3 Viewing from one more angle this Court finds that, had the civil suit been not filed at all, then neither 6.1 or 6.2 would have been a factor against the petitioner, but then also on the face of the said sale deed, the petitioner could not have been granted any relief, without any successful challenge to the said sale deed. 6.4 During the course of hearing, the resolution .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version