Allowed

Gokul Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Business India and Ors. and M/S. Business India and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Mar 2005APP/300/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and notice of motion to be withdrawn with liberty to take fresh proceedings. The order in a restructuring restriction dispute was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order of the learned single Judge setting aside the previous order is set aside. Appeal and notice of motion are allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to take fresh proceedings.

Gokul Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 Appeal No 300 of 2005
 in
 Notice of Motion No.33l5 of 2002
 in
 Suit No. 204 of l999
 Gokul Construction Co Pvt Ltd ..Appellant
 vs
 M/s Business India & ors..Respondents
 Mr A S Doctor i/b Federal & Rashmikant for
 appellant
 Mr.Amin Khare for respondents.

¶4

CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ.

¶5

 Dated 23.3.2005

¶6

 P.C:

¶7

 Heard advocates.

¶8

 2 By consent order dated 6.5.l999 the respondents

¶9

 were restrained inter alia that:

¶10

 "l5. Agreed and ordered that until the

¶11

 decree herein is marked satisfied:

¶12

 i. Defendant. nos, 6,9, and ll
 respectively shall not undertake any

¶13

 restructuring exercise of the Business India
 Group comprising of defendant .nos.l to 4,6,

¶14

 9 and ll as a whole or otherwise,except with
 the consent in writing of the plaintiff,

¶15

 which consent the plaintiff shall not
 unreasonably withhold provided that the
 consideration flowing therefrom is paid over
 to the plaintiff and with the leave of the
 court save as specified in clause 2(a)(ii).

¶16

 ii. Defendant nos. 5,6,9 and ll shall not
 transfer in their respective Register of
 Members the shares held by defendant nos.l
 to 4 in Defendant .nos 5,6,9 and ll save and
 except if the shares are sold in execution
 of the decree herein".

¶17

 3. The appellants filed the present notice of
 motion on apprehension that the respondents had
 initiated steps for restructuring the buildings
 without consent of the appellants. By order dated
 2.l2.2004 D.G.Deshpande J. directed respondents to
 disclose details of the restructuring but it
 appears that no details were disclosed .Ultimately
 respondents vide their letter dated l3.l.2005 to
 the advocates of the appellants stated that:

¶18

 "We have to inform you that after l9th July
2002 no progress has been made in
restructuring scheme commenced by IL & FS on
our instructions as Unit Trust of India has

¶19

not given its consent yet. We further
assure you that we will not proceed further
in the scheme without taking into confidence

¶20

’ your clients."

¶21

 (emphasis supplied)

¶22

 4. The learned counsel for the respondents
 reiterated that even as of this date there is no
 progress in restructuring scheme and he assured the
 court that the respondents will not proceed further
 in the scheme without taking consent of the
 appellants.

¶23

 5. In the result, the order of the learned single
 Judge is set aside. Appeal and notice of motion
 are allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to take
 fresh proceedings,if necessary.

Gokul Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Business India and Ors. and M/S. Business India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Business India and Ors. and M/S. Business India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reviera Knitwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sheem Seiki Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Anr.

M/S Archana Industries Transforment Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Alfa Transcore Industris

Archana Industries Transformers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Alfa Lamination

Patdi Commercial and Investments Ltd. and Ors. Vs Standard Industries Ltd.

Royal Anti-Biottics and Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nilmac Packaging Inudstries Ltd.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. Vs Shivaji Krishna Zunjare and Ors.