Dismissed

M/S Golden Tourist Resorts v. Committee Golden Forest etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2012CR/5283/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging the trial court's decision. The trial court correctly lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit against a committee constituted by the Supreme Court of India to sell properties, particularly after the Supreme Court confirmed the sale.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed as the trial court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

M/S Golden Tourist Resorts Vs Committee Golden… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Civil Revision No.5283 of 2012(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.5283 of 2012(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : September 10, 2012

¶5

M/s Golden Tourist Resorts and Developers

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Committee Golden Forest (India) Ltd. and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL

¶11

Present Mr.Yadvinder Singh Turka, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

M.JEYAPAUL, J.

¶14

The Revision Petitioner M/s Golden Tourist Resorts and Developers have challenged the very jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent, committee for Golden Forest India Limited appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶15

They have sought for a decree for declaration to the effect that the 1^st defendant has no right, title or interest or any authority in law to deal with the properties belonging to the plaintiff M/s Golden Tourist Resorts and Developers. A decree for permanent injunction has also been sought by the plaintiff restraining the defendants including the 1^st respondent from transferring rights or create any encumbrance 3^rd party interest in respect of the properties owned by

¶16

Civil Revision No.5283 of 2012(O&M) 2

¶17

M/s Golden Tourist Resorts and Developers. The assumption of the property allegedly owned and possessed by the plaintiff herein by the 1^st defendant-committee was strenuously challenged in the suit filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court.

¶18

The 1^st defendant resisted the suit at the preliminary stage itself contending that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the assumption of the property or sale of the property by the committee clothed by the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶19

The trial Court dismissed the suit based on the application moved by the 1^st defendant on the ground that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the sales effected by the 1^st defendant who was clothed with the right to sell the properties, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner would submit that the plaintiff was not a party to the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But its property was the subject matter of the sale was is being effected by the 1^st defendantcommittee and, therefore, the plaintiff has every authority to question such a dealing of the 1^st defendant-committee who was of course appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶21

I do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner.

¶22

The 1^st defendant-committee was constituted by the specific orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The sale of the properties had been effected by the 1^st respondent in terms of

¶23

Civil Revision No.5283 of 2012(O&M) 3

¶24

the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In fact the sale effected by the 1^st respondent was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. At this stage, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit challenging the very transaction effected by the 1^st respondent clothed by the specific orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. If at all, the plaintiff has any grievance as regards the assumption of the properties and sale of the same, the same should have been brought to the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the plaintiff. He has no right to file a separate suit challenging the very jurisdiction of the 1^st defendant-committee when such a jurisdiction was accorded by specific orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The trial Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter when the sale under challenge was already confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the 1^st defendant.

¶25

I do not find any error in the orders passed by the trial Court. As there is no merit in the Revision Petition, the Revision fails and it stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶26

(M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE

¶27

September 10 , 2012 p.singh

M/S Golden Tourist Resorts v. Committee Golden Forest etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Golden Tourist Resorts v. Committee Golden Forest etc.

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

Jagwati & Anr. Vs Rama Sharma & Ors.

Kulvinder Singh Vs Nasib Kaur and Anr.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Avtar Singh & Ors.

Dharamvir Vs Madanmohan

Rameshwar Dayal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Tek Chand Vs State of Haryana & Anr.