Integrated Five-Year B.A.L.L.B.

Programme
Batch: 2017-22
Academic Year: 2021-22
IL -505 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyance
SEMESTER IX

SUBBMITTED BY:-
Name: - Saakshi Bhavsar
Roll No: - 10

Page | 1
 Index

Unit: 1 Civil Drafting

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

1. Appeal to order 5

2. Civil Revision Application 14

3. First Appeal 19

4. Plaint for Specific Performance 26

5. Application for temporary injunction 35

6. Plaint for Permanent Injunction 41

7. Written statement 48

8. Interlocutory application 54

Unit: 2 Criminal Drafting

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

1. Criminal Revision 56

2. Application u/s.125 of Cr. PC for grant of Maintenance 60

3. Writ of Habeas Corpus 64

4. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) under Article 136 of the 70

Constitution of India

5. Application u/s. 437 of Cr. PC for grant of Bail 75

6. Application u/s. 438 of Cr. PC for grant of Anticipatory 79

Bail

7. Criminal Complaint 82

Page | 2
Unit: 3 Conveyance Deeds

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

1. Deed of Adoption 90

2. Agreement to Sell 94

3. General Power of Attorney 98

4. Gift Deed 102

5. Special Power of Attorney 103

6. Deed of Trust 106

7. Deed of Lease 110

8. Deed of Simple Mortgage 122

Unit: 4 Miscellaneous

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

1. Appeal before Consumer Commission 126

2. Caveat Application 135

3. Model Arbitration Clause Agreement 138

4. Complaint u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 141

1881

5. Notice, Statutory Notice and Notice u/s 138 of Negotiable 146

Instrument Act, 1881

6. Writ of Mandamus 149

7. Consumer Complaint 162

Page | 3
 Evaluation Committee

Dr. Vidhi Shah Mr. Darshan Pandya Ms. Foram Pandya

Dr. Mayuri H. Pandya

Director
GLS LAW COLLEGE

Page | 4
 Unit: 1 Civil Drafting

1. Appeal to order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: VADODARA

APPEAL FROM ORDER No. OF 2019

(Under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

1. Bariya Rukhiben Shanabhai,

Female, Aged – 86 years,
Residing at Sangma Village,
KuvaVaruFaliyu,
Taluka: Padra,
District: Vadoddara

2. Bariya Chanchalben Shanabhai,

W/o Bhailabhai Mathurbhai,
Female,Aged: 81 years,
Residing at Tjpura,
Taluka: Padra, District: Vadodara

3. Bariya Maniben Shanabhai,

W/o RamsinghBhikhabhai,
Female, Aged: 71 years,
Residing at BangaliFariya,
Opposite Old Padra Bus Stand,

Page | 5
Padra, District: Vadodara.

4. Bariya Jadaben Shanabai,

W/o Ambalal JavabhaiParmar,
Female, Aged: 65 years,
Residing at Krushinagar,
Besides Rampark, ahead of Tulsidham,
Manjalpur,
Vadodara. … Appellants
(Original Plaintiffs)

Versus

1. Deceased Ramjibhai Parshottambhai Patel,

Since Deceased through his legal heirs,

1/1 Parsottambhai Dharamshibhai Moradiya (Pate),

Male, Aged-Adult,
½ Manjulaben Ramjbhhai Moradiya (Patel),
Male, Aged: Adult,
1/3 Amit Ramjibhai Moraddiya
Male, Aged: Adult,
¼ SonalKetul Patel,
Female, Aged: Adult,

All residing at 1, Vasumahil Bungalows,

Vastrapur, Ahmedabad.

2. Ghanshyambhai Pragjibhai Virani,

Male, Aged-Adult,
Residing at Hirana village,
Taluka: Lathi, District: Amreli.

Page | 6
3. Bhupatbhai Parshotambhai Vithani,
Male, Aged-Adult,
Residing at Jadtala village,
Taluka: Gadhada,
District: Bhavnagar.

4. Savjibhai Jivrajbhai Italiya,

Residing at Pipal, Post: Navaniya,
Taluka: Vallabhipur,
District: Bhavnagar.

5. M/s. Sahjanand Corporation,

A parthernship Firm,
Through its administrator,
Having its office at.
―SahjanandAiris‖,
Near Balaji Flats,
Opp. Mahalaxmi Party Plot,
Manjalpur-GIDC Road,
Vadodara. … Respondents
(Org. Defendants)

TO,
THE HON‘BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
OTHER HON‘BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH
COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD.

The Appellant above named:

MOST RESPECTUFLLY SHEWETH THAT:

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order dated
06.10.2019 passed by Ld. 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Ex.
5in Regular Civil Suit No. 163 of 2013, whereby the Ld. Civil Judge, was pleased to

Page | 7
reject the application filed by the Appellants, on the grounds that the same is contrary
to settled principles of law, unjust and suffers from the vice of non -application of
mind. The Appellants had filed the said application under Exhibit 5 seeking injunction
against construction on the land bearing Revenue Survey no. 180/1, admeasuring
3642 sq. mts. situated at village: Manjalpur, Distrcit: Vadodara (hereinafter referred to
―the said land‖), as well transfer or creation of any third party rights on the said
land. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A is a copy of the order dated
06.03.2014 passed by the Ld. Lower Court.

2. At the outset, Appellants state that a certified copy of the impugned order dated
06.10.2019 was received by the Appellants on 31.03.2014. Hence the present appeal
has been filed within the period of limitation.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

3.1 The appellant-original plaintiffs, are illiterate senior citizens, and are the legal
heirs of the original owner of the said land. The father of the Appellants, Late Shri
Shanabhai Lallubhai Bariya was the original owner of the said agricultural land. The
Appellants inherited 1/7th share each in the said land, upon the demise of their father.
Whereas, Respondent nos. 1 to 4 are the original defendant nos. 1 to 4, who had
fraudulently and dishonestly obtained the said land through an illegal sale deed dated
18.01.2012. The Respondents have already started construction on the said land and
have tried to create third party rights and thereby frustrate the rights of the Appellants
over the said land.

3.2 The Appellants state that one Gunvatbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Rajubhai
Vithalbhai Patel met the Appellants and represented to them that if the Appellants
want to sell the said land, they will pay the premium on the behalf of the Appellants
for converting the said land into an old tenure land. The said persons took advantage
of the fact that the Appellants were illiterate and trusted them, by dishonestly
inducing the Appellants to give their thumb impressions for payment of premium for
conversion of land into an old tenure land, on 20.11.2010. The said persons gave a
cheque of Rs. 36 lakhs in the name of Appellant no. 3 towards security for providing
them with the sale deed, for the purposes of facilitating alleged conversion of land

Page | 8
into old tenure land, with an assurance that the balance amount of sale consideration
would be paid to them within a year. However, no amount came to be paid to the
Appellants. Ultimately, the said persons after obtaining thumb impressions from the
Appellants fraudulently obtained Power of Attorney in their favour, with respect to
the rights over the said land. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B(Colly.) are
copies of the Memorandum of Understanding along with a copy of the cheques of Rs.
36 lakhs reflecting the fraudulent practice committed by the afore-stated persons
against the Appellants herein. The Respondents did not allow the Appellant to encash
the said cheques of Rs. 36 lakhs also.

3.3 Subsequently, the afore-stated persons executed a registered sale deed dated
19.01.2012, on the basis of the fraudulent Power of Attorney, whereby the said land
was allegedly transferred to the Respondents herein. The Appellants were not aware
of the said sale transaction till they received summons in Special Civil Suit no. 385 of
2012. The said Special Civil Suit no. 385 of 2012 was filed by Laxmanbhai Gadhvi
and Rajeshbhai Shah seeking enforcement of the alleged Agreement to Sell dated
03.04.2010 and development agreement allegedly entered into by the Appellants in
their favour. It is pertinent to state that an Exhibit 5 application was also filed in the
said Special Civil Suit No. 385 of 2012, whereby injunction was sought against the
construction being carried out by the Respondents herein. The Ld. Civil Court vide its
order was pleased to grant status-quo in favour of the Plaintiffs therein. Being
aggrieved thereto, the Respondents herein filed an Appeal From Order No. 477 of
2013 before this Hon‘ble Court. This Hon‘ble Court vide its order dated 20.01.2014
modified the order of status-quo to the effect that the Respondents were permitted to
complete construction of the suit property upon filing of an undertaking that in case of
decree of specific performance being allowed in favour of the plaintiffs therein, they
will not claim any right or compensation in lieu of such construction. Annexed hereto
and marked as Annexure-Cis a copy of the illegal sale deed dated 19.01.2012.
Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D is a copy of the order dated 20.01.2014
passed by this Hon‘ble Court in the Appeal from Order no. 477 of 2013. Annexed
hereto and marked as Annexure-E is a copy of the reply filed by the Appellants in
Special Civil Suit No. 385 of 2012.

Page | 9
3.4 The Appellants also came to know the fact that the Respondents herein had filed
an application dated 13.01.2012 for conversion of said land into an old tenure land
upon payment of premium of Rs. 1,73,95,200/-. The land was valued at Rs.
4,34,88,000/- based on the jantri rates. The permission for conversion of land into old
tenure land was granted on 17.01.2012. Immediately thereafter the illegal sale deed
dated 19.01.2012 was executed by the parties. Annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure-F(Colly.) are copies of the application dated 13.01.2012 and order dated
17.01.2012 whereby the said land was converted into an old tenure land.

3.5 Subsequently, the Appellants herein filed a complaint against the Respondents
herein before the concerned police authorities. However, since no steps were taken by
the police authorities, the Appellants filed a complaint before the Ld. Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Vadodara. The Ld. Magistrate, was pleased to issue notice
under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure-G is a copy of the complaint filed by the Appellants herein. It is pertinent
to state that a false cross complaint also came to be filed by the Respondents herein
against the Appellants.

3.6 The Appellants also filed the present suit, being Regular Civil Suit no. 163 of
2013 along with an Exhibit 5 application, seeking injunction against construction as
well as creation of third party rights by the Respondents. The Appellants interalia
submitted before the Ld. Civil Court that the illegal sale deed dated 19.01.2012 was
fraudulently executed by the Respondents and the same therefore should be set aside.
It was also submitted before the Ld. Civil Court that the Appellants herein had not
received any consideration towards the sale deed and therefore also the sale deed
dated 19.01.2012 should be quashed and set aside.The Annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure-H is a copy of the plaint filed by the Appellants. Annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure-I is a copy of the Kabulatnama allegedly made by the Appellants
herein under fraud, misrepresentation and coercion.

3.7 During the pendency of the present suit, the Respondents filed their reply to the
suit. The Respondents submitted that the amount of Rs. 62,12,572/- was credited in
the accounts of the Appellants, vide cheques dated 19.01.2012 as had been mentioned
in the sale deed dated 19.01.2012. The Appellants produced entries to show that the

Page |
10
same were credited. However, the said entries reflect that the alleged amount was
encashed in March 2012. It does not reflect that the said amount was paid to the
Appellants. Further, out of the valuation of the land being Rs. 4,34,88,000/-, the
Appellants were allegedly paid only Rs. 62,12,572/- though the Appellants owned
4/7th share in the said land. The said fact reflects the hollowness in the averments of
the Respondents. The Appellants filed their rejoinder in the said suit. Annexed hereto
and marked as Annexure-J(Colly.) are copies of the reply filed by the Respondents in
the present suit along with the counter affidavit filed by the Appellants herein.
Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-K(Colly.) are entries, as produced by the
Respondents. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-L(Colly.) are copies of the
notices served on behalf of the Appellants and Respondents herein. Annexed hereto
and marked as Annexure-M is a copy of the relevant advertisement of the
construction scheme being carried out by the Respondents.

3.8 However, the Ld. Civil Court vide the impugned order dated 06.03.2014 rejected
the Exhibit 5 application filed by the Appellants, without giving due consideration to
the submissions made by the Appellants.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.03.2014passed by Ld. 10th

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Ex. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 163
of 2013, the present appeal has been filed on the following amongst other grounds
without prejudice to one another:

GROUNDS

A. That impugned order dated 06.03.2014 passed by Ld. 10th Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Vadodara below Ex. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 163 of 2013 is contrary to
the provisions of law, settled principles of law, unjust and suffers from the vice of
non-application of mind.

B. Thatthe Ld. Civil Judge ought to have considered the fact that admittedly the
valuation of the said land as per jantri rates was 4,34,88,000/-. Whereas, even as per
the Respondents, the Appellants were allegedly paid only Rs. 62,12,572/-. The said

Page |
11
fact reflects that the cheques mentioned in the sale deed dated 19.01.2012 were only
for the namesake and in fact no consideration was paid to the Appellants herein. It is
further submitted that the entries as produced by the Respondents herein, also do not
show the said amount of Rs. 62,12,572/- was credited to the account of the
Appellants. It appears that the said cheques were encased by the unlawful Power of
Attorney holder of the Appellants and the same had never been received by the
Appellants herein. The Respondents have not been able to produce any documentary
evidence to the effect that the amount of consideration had been credited to the
accounts of the Appellants herein.It is further submitted that even if it is assumed
without conceding that the aforesaid amount was given to the Appellants herein, the
huge difference between the amount which ought to have been given to the
Appellants, itself reflects that the sale deed dated 19.01.2012 is fraudulent and false.
Further, the amount allegedly paid in cash by the Respondents ought not to have been
considered by the Learned Civil Court, since as per the provisions of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 any amount exceeding Rs. 20,000/- has to be paid by way of cheque.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set
aside by this Hon‘ble Court.

C. That the Ld. Civil Court had erred by not considering the settled principle of law
that any contract, particularly a sale deed, would be void if no amount is paid towards
consideration of the said contract. It is submitted that the Appellants had not received
any consideration towards the illegal sale deed dated 19.01.2012, and the same was
therefore void ab initio. It is further submitted that the Power of Attorney was also
fraudulently executed against the interests of the Appellants herein. Therefore, the
said sale deed executed on the basis of the false Power of Attorney also should not
have been relied upon by the Ld. Civil Court. The Appellants submit that since the
sale deed dated 19.01.2012 was itself void, the consequent possession of the
Respondents is also unlawful. The Ld. Civil Court therefore ought to have stayed the
construction being carried out by the Respondents herein.

D. That the Learned Civil Court has not considered the fact that the Appellant had not
joined other co-owners since they had received full consideration of the sale price
from the Respondents. They were therefore not necessary parties to the present suit.
Further, the Respondents had not raised any averment with respect to non-joinder of

Page |
12
parties and the same therefore ought not to have been considered by the Learned Civil
Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Learned
Civil Court ought to be quashed and set aside on this ground also.

E. That the Ld. Civil Court, with due respect erred by not considering the fact that the
Appellants had not suppressed any material facts. The Ld. Civil Court had also not
considered the fact that criminal complaints had been filed by the Respondents herein
only to pressurize and harass the Appellants. The Ld. Civil Court also ought to have
considered the fact that if the interim relief as sought for by the Appellants was not
granted, irreparable injury would be caused to the Appellants in as much as third party
rights would be created against the Appellants. Further, the Respondents have taken
undue advantage of the problem of illiteracy of the Appellants by dishonestly
obtaining their thumb impressions. The Ld. Civil Court has not considered the plight
of the illiterate Appellants who have almost lost their land without any consideration
being provided to them. The Ld. Civil Court ought to have granted the interim reliefs
as sought for by the Appellants herein.

F. That even otherwise the order dated 06.10.2019 is bad in law and deserves to be
quashed and set aside.

5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete any of the grounds
aforesaid at the time of the hearing.

6. In the premises aforesaid the appellant prays as under:-

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned dated
06.10.2019 passed by Ld. 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Ex. 5
in Regular Civil Suit No. 163 of 2013;

(B) Such other and further relief that this Hon‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the interest of justice be granted.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT ABOVENAMED

SHALL AS IN DUTY BIND FOREVER PRAY.

Page |
13
Date: 14 /10/2019
Place: Ahmedabad Advocates for the Appellant

2. Civil Revision Application

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: VALSAD

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO OF 2019

Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
against the order dated 10/09/2019 below Exh-27 in Regular Civil Suit No. 18/2015
passed by the learned 7th (Ad-hoc), Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Vapi, District :
Valsad;

1. Danish Alim Shaikh,

Male, aged about 46 years,
Occu : Business,

2. Makbul Valiulla Shaikh,

Male, aged about 48 years,
Occu : Business,
Both are residing at :
Flat No.301, Nilkanth Complex,
Morarji Circle,
GIDC, Vapi,
Taluka : Vapi,

Page |
14
District : Valsad. ..Applicants

Versus

Mohmmedvakil Mohmmedchhedi Chaudhry,

Male, Aged adult,
Occu : Business,
Residing at :
004, Wing-D, Himala Society,
Opp. Hotel Dan,
Morarji Circle,
GIDC Vapi,
Taluka : Vapi,
District : Valsad. …Respondent

TO
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND THE OTHER HONOURABLE JUDGES
OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED:-

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:-

1. The applicant seeks to challenge the order dated 10/09/2019 below Exh-27 in
Regular Civil Suit No. 18/2015 passed by the learned 7th (Ad-hoc), Addl. Civil Judge
and JMFC, Vapi, District : Valsad.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present application are as under:-

Page |
15
2.1 The respondent herein preferred Regular Civil Suit No.18/2015 in the court of
Principal Civil Judge (JD), Vapi for recovery of possession for the property situated
as Shop No.1, 2 and 9 at S.S. Complex on plot No.3 of Revenue Survey No.159/3. It
is the case of the respondent that the above property was given on agreement. Copies
of the application vide Exh-60 in H.M.P. No. 106 of 2013 and the order passed below
the same dated 07.07.2015 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A to
this application.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above order by the learned Principal
Family Judge, Gandhinagar dated 07.07.2015 below Exh-60 in H.M.P. No. 106 of
2013, the applicant herein begs to prefer the present Revision Application on the
following amongst other grounds:-

GROUNDS

A) The impugned judgment and order under challenge is erroneous in law and
contrary to well settled provisions and contrary to the facts and merits of the case.

B) The applicant submits that the order is a non-speaking order without giving any
reason and is bias in nature.

C) The applicant further submits that the order for interim maintenance was passed on
11.05.2015 and the amount is Rs.2,71,000/-. The applicant requires time to deposit
the said amount and furthermore, the applicant has challenged the said order of
granting maintenance before this Hon‘ble Court and the reasons given by the learned
Principal Family Judge, Gandhinagar for rejecting the application for adjournment
and issuance of summons is prima facie wrong based on the above facts.

D) The applicant further submits that the learned Principal Family Judge,
Gandhinagar is dealing with the present matter in the bias manner for the reason that
the right of evidence of the respondent herein was closed in August 2014, but upon an
application, was opened in January 2015 even without examination-in-chief of the
present applicant. It was dismissed on the ground that the said examination-in-chief is
not in vernacular language. It would be expedient to note that the H.M.P. was filed in

Page |
16
2012, but subsequently because of bifurcation of work, in HMP No.106 of 2013 for
almost 2½ years, the respondent herein never cared to bring on record the whole
evidence and furthermore, the respondent did not even remain present in the said
matter from June 2014 to January 2015, whereas from February 2015, the matter has
been listed not less than 5 times, wherein the present applicant has remained present
and examined not less than three witnesses. Apart from that, it is the turn of the
present applicant to bring his own evidence on record by producing his witnesses for
examination, however the learned Principal Family Judge, Gandhinagar rejected the
application on the ground that the amount of interim maintenance is not paid for
which an order was passed only before two months. This clearly depicts the bias
manner in which the learned Principal Family Judge, Gandhinagar is dealing with
H.M.P. No. 106 of 2013 and therefore, to give a fair chance to the applicant to put his
case before this Court, the order passed by the learned Family Principal Judge,
Gandhinagar in Exh-60 on 07.07.2015 requires to be quashed and set aside.

3. The applicant craves leave of this Hon‘ble Court to add, amend, alter, vary, rescind
or modify any of the grounds/averments above, in the interest of justice.

4. The applicant has not preferred any other petition/s before this Honourable Court or
before the Honourable Supreme Court of India, with regard to the subject matter of
this application.

5. The applicant has no other alternative efficacious remedy, but to file the present
application before this Hon'ble Court.

6. The applicant, therefore, humbly prays that:

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this application;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated
10/09/2019 passed below Exh-27 in Regular Civil Suit No. 18/2015 passed by the
learned 7th (Ad-hoc), Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Vapi, District : Valsad;

Page |
17
(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, further proceedings of
H.M.P. No.106 of 2013 be stayed in the interest of justice;

(D) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as
deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE APPLICANT, AS IN

DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVERY PRAY.

Date: 14/10/2019
Place: Ahmedabad Advocate for the applicant

AFFIDAVIT

I, Danish Alim Shaikh, the applicant herein, do hereby state on solemn affirmation
that what is stated in Para to hereinabove is true to my information, derived
from the official record and I believe the same to be true. Para No. is prayer clause.

All the documents enclosed are the true copies of their originals.

SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED ON THIS 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 AT

AHMEDABAD.

DEPONENT

Page |
18
 3. FIRST APPEAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: GANDHINAGAR

FIRST APPEAL / / 2019

(U/s. 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908)

Ranvirsinh Dilipsinh Rana

Sex: Male
Aged: Adult,
Residing at:
71, Shahibaug Society,
Asharwa,
Ahmedabad
..Appellant
Versus
Manishaben Natwarlal Prajapati
Sex: Female,
Aged: 27 years,
Residing at:
G-105, Sundarvan Appartment,
Ranip,
Ahmedabad. …Opponent

To,
The Honourable Chief Justice and other
Honourable Judges of the High Court of
Gujarat, Sola at Ahmedabad.

Page |
19
The humble petition of the petitioner above named:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:

1. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment and Award dated
06/10/2019 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Coiurt, Gandhinagar in HMP
No. 106/2013 (Old No. 154/2012) passed below Ex.79 in granting annulment of
marriage dated 30/06/2012 between appellant and opponent herein as been void from
inception. The copy of order dated 06/10/2019 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-A to this appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case as per appellant is as under:

2.1 The appellant and the opponent got married as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals on
30.06.2012 at Khodiyar Mandir, Gandhinagar. The appellant was working as Talati-
cum-Mantri in Gandhinagar District and the opponent was working as village friend
(Gram Mitra) and at that point of time, they fell in love with each other but since the
family members of the opponent were against this relationship, they decided to get
married on 30.06.2012. Copy of marriage certificate is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE-B to this petition.

2.2 The appellant submits that on 30.06.2012, the marriage was performed as per the
Hindu Rites and Rituals and subsequently, the same was registered at the Office of
Registrar of Marriage, Gandhinagar. It is pertinent to note that subsequently, the
opponent herein, for some unknown reasons, decided to marry someone else and she
did not wish to continue the marriage with the present appellant. Therefore, the
opponent herein filed one FIR stating that the marriage which had taken place on
30.06.2012 was because of fraud committed by the present appellant. FIR was
registered with Sector-7 Gandhinagar Police Station, Gandhinagar being I-
C.R.No.323 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant preferred the quashing
petition being Criminal Misc. Application No.399 of 2014 before this Court and this
Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant interim relief to the present appellant and the same
is pending for further adjudication. Copy of Criminal Misc. Application No.399 of

Page |
20
2014 and order of stay is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-C Colly. to
this appeal.

2.3 Subsequently, the respondent herein preferred one Hindu Marriage Petition
(hereinafter referred to as ―HMP‖ for short) for declaring the marriage as nullity
under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act and the same was numbered as HMP No.106
of 2013.

2.4 After hearing both the sides and after leading evidence, the Ld. Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gandhinagar came to conclusion that the stand of opponent that the
marriage did not took place because of violation of provision of Section 7 of Hindu
Marriage Act and therefore came to a conclusion that marriage be annulled and
passed order declaring marriage between appellant and opponent herein a nullity.
Copy of judgment and order is already annexed at Annexure-A to this appeal.

3. The Appellant seeks to challenge the award and judgment of Ld. Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gandhinagar on the following amongst other grounds as the order been
prima facie illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind.

GROUNDS

a) That the impugned judgment and order is ex facie illegal, unjust and against the
provisions of the statutes and hence it will be just and proper for this Hon‘ble High
Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order.

b) The first and foremost point which needs to be highlighted before this Court is that
during the pendency of HMP No.106/2013, the opponent herein preferred an
application for interim maintenance and the said application was granted by the Ld.
Family Judge, Gandhinagar. It is submitted that, a wife can claim interim
maintenance/alimony but the opponent whose stand from the very beginning was that
she is not a wife of the present appellant. But then also, she claims maintenance and
the court grants the same. This categorically shows that the opponent claimed
maintenance as a wife and the Ld. Family Judge accepted the same.

Page |
21
c) It is submitted that, on 30/06/2012, friend of present opponent also got married at
the office of Registrar, wherein, the present opponent was a witness. In the same
office on the very same day, the parties to the present appeal also got their marriage
registered. The opponent tries to show that she was with her friend between 12 to 5
for her friend‘s marriage and has never visited marriage registration office. In the
cross examination, opponent accepts that she has signed as witness. Therefore, the
claim of the opponent that her signature was fraudulently taken on the marriage
registration form is false and she was very well aware on which document the
opponent is signing. Copy of application for registration of marriage parties to the
present appeal and application for registration of marriage of the friend of opponent
herein are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D Colly to this appeal.

d) It is further submitted that, the opponent has very heavily relied upon the fact that
one Gajendrasinh Vaghela, who is friend of the present appellant and who the
opponent treats as her elder brother. It was the case of the opponent that everything
was planned by said Gajendrasinh and the said person fraudulently took signatures of
the opponent on marriage registration documents. If at all that was the case of the
opponent or if at all the said fact happened, the opponent never cared to call the said
Gajendrasinh Vaghela as witness.

e) It is further stated and submitted that, when the saptpadi took place, there were in
all five persons were present. Parties to the present appeal, priest, Gajendrasinh
Vaghela and Dashrathji Umaji Thakore. The Ld. Family Judge has not believed the
deposition of the priest on the ground that the priest has given two affidavits one in
the favour of the opponent and subsequently, in the favour in the appellant. But, in the
deposition, the priest categorically states that four people came to him including real
sister in law of opponent and threatened the priest of dire consequences and after such
coercion took the priest to notary public for getting his signature on affidavit. But,
subsequently, the priest gives his deposition narrating true and correct facts alongwith
stating the same on oath on affidavit.

f) It is also submitted that the fifth person i.e. Late Shri Dashrathji Thakore was
present at the time of saptpadi and has also signed as witness in the marriage

Page |
22
registration form, but before his time come for deposition, he expired. But, Late Shri
Dashrathji Thakore has already given an affidavit narrating the manner in which the
marriage took place and also accepting the fact that saptpadi also took place. Copy of
affidavit of Dashrathji Thakore is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-E to this
appeal.

g) It is further stated and submitted that, the Ld. Judge has failed to appreciate the
deposition of present appellant in its correct spirit. The present appellant had
categorically stated that his marriage had taken place and subsequently registration
was done. In the cross examination also the appellant has stick to his version and also
the details of his matrimonial life was given. The Ld. Judge ought to have relied on
the statement of present appellant coupled with the priest and other independent other
government witnesses.

h) It is pertinent to note here that, the Ld. Judge has relied on statement of one priest
where marriage has taken place, the witness has stated that no marriage has taken
place in last five years. He also accepted that normally the marriage can take place in
Khodiyar Mandir and he leaves the temple at 10.00 o‘clock in the morning and comes
back only after five and if any marriage has taken place between 10.00 to 5.00, he will
not come to know about the same. The Ld. Judge ought to have considered that the
marriage had taken place between 3.00 to 5.00 and therefore the deposition of this
witness ought not to have relied.

i) It is pertinent to note here that, the appellant herein has examined independent
witnesses such as Notary, who had notarized the requisite document for registration of
marriage. He categorically stated that he had verified the identity card and after
explaining to both the parties, the affidavit was done. The Registrar of Marriage was
examined, he had categorically stated that both the parties were present and after due
inquiry marriage were registered. He further indentified both the parties. The priest
was also examined, who had supported the marriage of the parties to the present
appeal. The Ld. Judge has accepted that the present opponent was present and
marriage was registered, but at the same time without considering the statement of
witnesses, come to a conclusion that saptpadi was not performed. It is pertinent to
note that, when the Ld. Judge is not believing half of the story of present opponent, he

Page |
23
ought not to have believed the other parts without there being an evidence to that
effect.

j) It is pertinent to note here that, after the arguments were concluded, the matter was
adjourned to 08/11/2015 for orders. But shockingly, the said order for the reasons best
known to the Ld. Judge, was declared on 06/11/2015 without the knowledge of the
present appellant. It is pertinent to note that, on inquiring, the appellant came to know
that the Ld. Judge was transferred and before leaving the court for some unknown
reason, the said order was pre-poned and declared.

e) Even otherwise, the judgment and order passed by the Ld. Judge, Family Court,
Gandhinagar is ex facie illegal, unjust and against the provisions of the statutes and
hence it will be just and proper for this Hon‘ble High Court to quash and set aside the
impugned judgment and order

4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or substitute any of the ground
stated in the memo of the appeal as and when it is necessitated in the interest of
justice.

5. The appellant submits that he has not any alternative efficacious remedy, except
filing of this appeal.

6. The appellant submits that he has not filed any appeal before any other courts of
law in India including this Hon‘ble High Court or Supreme Court of India, except the
present one.

7. The appellants, therefore, pray that this Hon‘ble Court be pleased to

a. Admit the present appeal;

b. Allow this appeal by quashing and setting aside the order dated 06/10/2019 passed
by the Ld. Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar in HMP No.106/2013 ;

Page |
24
c. Stay the order dated 06/10/2019 passed by the Ld. Judge, Family Court,
Gandhinagar in HMP No.106/2013

d. Such other and further reliefs as the Hon‘ble Court may deem fit.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE APPELLANTS
SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

AHMEDABAD. -------------------
Date : /10/2019 Advocate for the appellant
Affidavit of the Appellant

I, Ranvirsinh Rana, adult, residing at the address mentioned in the cause title of this
application, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :
I have read and understood the contents of the application memo. Its Paras are true to
my knowledge and belief.

Solemnly affirmed on this day of October, 2019 at Ahmedabad.

……………………………….
DEPONENT

Identified by me

Advocate

Page |
25
 4. Plaint for Specific Performance

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AHMEDABAD (RURAL) AT

AHMEDABAD

Special Civil Suit No. Of 2019

Plaintiffs :

1. Ravin Ranchodbhai Patel

Aged: 45 years, Occupation: Business,
Residing at Someshwar Bungalows,
Near Someshwar Derasar,
Ringroad, Satellite,
Ahmedabad

2. Chetan Ranchodbhai Patel,

Aged: 42 years, Occupation: Business,
Residing at Someshwar Bungalows,
Near Someshwas Derasar,
Ringroad, Satellite,
Ahmedabad

Versus

Defendants :

Legal Heirs of Ramabhai Chaganbhai Prajapati,

1. Jamnaben Ramabhai Prajapati
Aged: Adult, Occupation: Homemaker, Religion: Hindu,
Residing at: Baliyavas,

Page |
26
Amraivadi,
Ahmedabad

2. Kantibhai Ramabhai Prajapati

Aged: Adult Occupation: Agriculturist/Business, Religion: Hindu,
Residing at: Residing at: Baliyavas,
Amraivadi,
Ahmedabad

3. Maheshbhai Ramabhai Prajapati

Aged: Adult Occupation: Agriculturist/Business, Religion: Hindu,
Residing at: Residing at: Baliyavas,
Amraivadi,
Ahmedabad

4. Manjulaben Pravinkumar Ambalal

Aged: Adult Occupation: Homemaker, Religion: Hindu
Residing at:

5. Geetaben Bharatkumar Nathalal

Aged: Adult Occupation: Homemaker, Religion: Hindu
Residing at:

6. Hasumatiben Anilkumar Natvarlal

Aged: Adult Occupation: Homemaker, Religion: Hindu
Residing at:

The plaintiffs abovenamed most respectfully says and submits as under:-

1. The plaintiffs are filing the present special civil suit for the purposes of seeking
specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 02.08.1995, which was executed
by the plaintiffs with the predecessor of the defendants, namely Ramabhai
Chagganbhai Prajapati.

Page |
27
2. One, Ambalal Dharubhai Patel, was owner of certain parcels of land bearing – (1)
Block no. 65 admeasuring 2 Acres and 5 Guthas, (2) Block no. 64 admeasuring 2
Acres and 26 Gunthas, (3) Block no. 70 admeasuring 1 Acres and 7 Gunthas, and (4)
Block no. 67 admeasuring 3 Acres and 27 gunthas, situated in village: Hebatpur,
Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad.

3. Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati purchased land bearing Block no. 65,
admeasuring 2 Acres and 5 Gunthas, situated in village: Hebatpur, Taluka: Daskroi,
District: Ahmedabad, from the original owner by way of a registered sale deed dated
01.03.1962. The other parcels of land bearing Block Nos. 70, 64, and 67 owned by
Ambalal Dharubhai Patel were purchased by brothers of Ramabhai Chagganbhai
Prajapati, namely – (1) Joitaram Chagganlal Prajapati (2) Ranchodbhai Chagganlal
Prajapati, by way of registered sale deeds.

4. Subsequently, Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati approached the plaintiffs for

the purposes of selling his share in the parcels of land. Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai
Prajapati represented to the plaintiffs that all the parcels of land which were bought
from Ambalal Dharubhai Patel through registered sale deeds, would be partitioned
between his brothers in the near future and that Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati
would accordingly own 1/3rd share in land bearing Block nos. 64, 65, 67, 70.
Accordingly, an agreement to sell dated 16.03.1995 was executed between Shri
Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati and the plaintiffs.

5. By way of the aforesaid Agreement to Sell dated 16.03.1995, it was agreed that
Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati would sell his 1/3rd share admeasuring 3428
square meters in land bearing Block no. 65 admeasuring in total 10285 square meters
situated in village: Hebatpur, Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad, for a sale
consideration of Rs. 9,77,075/- at an agreed rate of Rs. 95 per square meter. The
plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- till the date of execution of the said
Agreement to Sell dated 16.03.1995, which was also recorded in the said Agreement
to Sell.

6. Thereafter, another Agreement to Sell dated 02.08.1995, was executed between

between Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati and the plaintiffs. It was agreed

Page |
28
therein that Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati would sell his 1/3rd share
(admeasuring 15608 square meters) in all the parcels of land bearing Block nos. 64,
65, 67, 70, situated in village: Hebatpur, Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad, in
favour of the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ―the said land‖ or ―the land in
dispute‖). The total share of Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati in the aforesaid
four parcels of land came to 15608 square meters of land. It was agreed that the land
in dispute would be sold to the plaintiffs for a sale consideration of Rs. 14,82,760/- at
Rs. 95 per square meter of land. Since the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was already paid
by the plaintiffs to Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati, no further amount of
consideration was paid towards the said Agreement to Sell nor was any amount of
consideration mentioned in the said Agreement to Sell dated 02.08.1995. It was also
stated in the said Agreement to Sell that Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati will have to
provide an income tax clearance certificate to the plaintiffs.

7. The Plaintiff states that subsequent to the execution of the Agreement to Sell dated
02.08.1995, the Plaintiffs paid amounts of – (i) Rs. 1,50,000/- on 20.04.1996, (ii) Rs.
50,000/- on 10.10.1996, and (iii) Rs. 25,000 on 15.02.1997. Endorsements of the said
payments were made on last pages of the earlier Agreement to Sell dated 16.03.1995
and signatures of Ramabhai Chagganbhai Patel were also obtained on the said
endorsements. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- was paid to Ramabhai
Chagganbhai Prajapti over and above Rs. 3,50,000/- mentioned in the Agreement to
Sell dated 16.03.1995. Therefore, in total an amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- was paid to
Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati towards consideration of the Agreement to Sell.

8. However, the aforesaid parcels of land bearing Block nos. 64, 65, 67, 70 came to be
partitioned only in the year 2001. The said partition was recorded in the revenue
records vide mutation entry no. 1534, whereby Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati
obtained 1/3rd share in the land bearing Block nos. 64, 65, 67, 70. Accordingly, the
name of Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati was finally entered in the revenue
records against the said land.

9. Subsequently, the plaintiffs approached Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati for

seeking title clearance certificate for the purposes of execution of the sale deed. The
plaintiffs requested for a copy of the alleged partition deed on the basis of which

Page |
29
mutation entry no. 1534 was entered in the revenue records. However, Ramabhai
Chagganbhai Prajapati could not provide the plaintiffs with any copy of the partition
deed. The title of the property not being cleared by Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati,
the plaintiffs were unable to execute the sale deed.

10. Further, in the years 2001-02, the alleged tenants initiated civil as well as tenancy
proceedings with respect certain parcels of land, including the aforesaid parcels of
land bearing Block nos. 64, 65, 67, 70. The said proceedings are pending even on the
date of filing of the present suit.

11. Unfortunately, Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati passed away on 26.11.2003.

Thereafter, once again the plaintiffs approached the legal heirs of Ramabhai
Chagganbhai Prajapati, i.e. the defendants herein, for the purposes of obtaining title
clearance certificate and for execution of the sale deed. However, some of the
defendants herein conveyed to the plaintiffs that Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai
Prajapati had left behind a Will and accordingly they would be initiated appropriate
proceedings for the purposes of obtaining probate of the same. The said defendants
did not provide a copy of the Will to the plaintiffs at the relevant point of time.

12. Subsequently, some of the defendants filed the probate proceedings, being
Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 9 of 2007 before the Hon‘ble District Court,
Ahmedabad (Rural). The said application is pending at the date of filing of the present
suit. Accordingly, since the title of the said land was still not clear, the plaintiffs could
not seek execution of the sale deed, though they were always ready and willing to do
so.

13. To the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiffs, an advertisement was published
on 11.05.2015 in ―Gujarat Samachar‖, whereby objections were invited against sale
of the land in dispute. Accordingly, the plaintiffs vide letter dated 01.06.2015 raised
their objections wherein it was specifically stated that agreements to sell had been
executed in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs have rights/interest in
the said land. It is pertinent to state that despite the pendency of the probate
proceedings, the defendants have sought to transfer the said land without even
awaiting the outcome of the said probate proceedings. The plaintiffs were awaiting

Page |
30
the outcome of the probate proceedings, prior to seeking execution of the sale deed.
However, in view of the said advertisement dated 11.05.2015, the plaintiffs have been
constrained to file the present suit seeking specific performance of the Agreement to
Sell dated 02.08.1995, since it appears that the defendants are not willing to perform
their part of the contract i.e. execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs herein. It is
further pertinent to state that another Special Civil Suit No. 8201 of 2011 with respect
to the same property is also pending before this Hon‘ble Court.

14. The Plaintiffs submit that they have always been ready and willing to execute the
sale deed. The plaintiffs have time and again represented to Late Shri Ramabhai
Chagganbhai Prajapati as well as the defendants herein at the relevant points of time,
for execution of the sale deed. The Plaintiffs have continuously shown, till the date of
filing of the present suit, that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to execute the sale
deed. The plaintiffs have approached the defendants and/or their predecessor at the
relevant points of time and have requested them to execute the sale deed. The
plaintiffs also had the capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. However, due to
no fault of the plaintiffs, since the defendants and/or their predecessor did not provide
the plaintiffs with a clear title certificate, the plaintiffs were unable to execute the sale
deed. Further, in view of the fact that several proceedings were pending as mentioned
hereinabove; the plaintiffs were not able to get the sale deed executed for the land in
dispute.

15. However, it now appears that the defendants are seeking to transfer the said land
to a third party and that they are not willing to perform their part of the contract, the
plaintiffs are filing the present civil suit for the purposes of seeking specific
performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 02.08.1995.

16. The plaintiffs submit that they have a clear right, title and interest in the land in
dispute and therefore the defendants cannot transfer the land in dispute to any third
party. The plaintiffs have already paid an amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- till the year 1997,
and therefore equities have been created in favour of the plaintiffs herein. The said
payment has been acknowledged and accepted by Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Patel,
i.e. the predecessors of the defendants, and the same is reflected from the Agreement
to Sell dated 16.03.1995 and the endorsements made therein.

Page |
31
17. The plaintiffs state that if this Hon‘ble Court deems fit, the plaintiffs are agreeable
to pay the market value for the land admeasuring 9555 square meters out of the total
said land admeasuring 15608 square meters, after adjustment of the amount of Rs.
5,75,000/- which has been already paid by the plaintiffs at Rs. 95 per square meters.
In other words, the plaintiffs having already paid Rs. 5,75,000 at Rs. 95 per square
meters of land between the years 1995 to 1997, the plaintiffs have already paid for the
land admeasuring 6053 square meters out of the total said land admeasuring 15608
square meters (i.e. Rs. 575000/ Rs. 95 = 6053 square meters). Accordingly, the
plaintiffs are willing to pay consideration for the balance land admeasuring 9555
square meters (i.e. 15608 – 6053 = 9555 square meters) at the market value. The said
request may accordingly be considered by this Hon‘ble Court and this Hon‘ble Court
may accordingly grant the reliefs sought for by the present plaintiffs.

18. The plaintiffs have produced with separate list all the relevant correspondences
that took place between the plaintiff and defendant in this regard and the plaintiff
craves leave of this Hon‘ble Court to refer to and to rely upon for its true and correct
interpretation at the time of hearing.

19. The cause of action for the present suit has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of
this Hon‘ble Court on various dates and grounds, more particularly, narrated in
foregoing plaint.

20. The plaintiff, therefore, prays that:

(A) The Hon‘ble Court be pleased to grant specific performance of the Agreement to
Sell dated 02.08.1995 in favour of the plaintiffs;

(B) The Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating, selling their share in the land
bearing Block nos. 64, 65, 67, 70, situated in village: Hebatpur, Taluka: Daskroi,
District: Ahmedabad in favour of any third party and/or from creating any right, title
or interest therein in favour of any third party;

(C) Any other relief, which deem fit and proper, be awarded in favour of the plaintiff;

Page |
32
(D) Costs of this application be awarded to the plaintiff.

21. The List of Documents with relevant papers/documents and statements are hereto
annexed.

22. That the address of the plaintiff and the defendant as stated in the cause title of the
plaint are true and correct and this statement is made as per Order 6 Rule 14 A of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

23. An affidavit in support of the application is filed along with the application.

Date: /10/2015
Place: Ahmedabad
(Plaintiffs)
Verification

I, aged-adult, Indian-Inhabitant, authorized

signatory of the plaintiff company, residing at , , do
hereby verify and state that whatever stated in hereinabove is true to the best of my
knowledge, information, and belief and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly verified at Ahmedabad on this day of October, 2019

Plaintiff

Page |
33
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AHMEDABAD (RURAL) AT
AHMEDABAD

Special Civil Suit No. Of 2015

Plaintiffs : Ravin Ranchodbhai Patel and anr.

Versus

Defendant : Legal Heirs of Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati

Affidavit

I, aged-adult, Indian-inhabitant, residing at

, do hereby on solemn affirmation state that
whatever stated in hereinabove is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on this day of October, 2019.

Deponent

Page |
34
 5. Application for Temporary Injunction

IN district COURT (RURAL) AT AHMEDABAD

Special Civil Suit No. of 2015

Plaintiffs : Ravin Ranchodbhai Patel and anr.

Versus

Defendant: Legal Heirs of Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati

APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION

The Applicants above named most respectfully says and submits as under:-

1. One, Ambalal Dharubhai Patel, was owner of certain parcels of land bearing – (1)
Block no. 65 admeasuring 2 Acres and 5 Guthas, (2) Block no. 64 admeasuring 2
Acres and 26 Gunthas, (3) Block no. 70 admeasuring 1 Acres and 7 Gunthas, and (4)
Block no. 67 admeasuring 3 Acres and 27 gunthas, situated in village: Hebatpur,
Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad.

2. Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati purchased land bearing Block No. 65, Block
no. 65, admeasuring 2 Acres and 5 Gunthas, situated in village: Hebatpur, Taluka:
Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad, from the original owner by way of a registered sale
deed dated 01.03.1962. The other parcels of land bearing Reveue Survey Nos. 70, 64,
and 67 owned by Ambalal Dharubhai Patel were purchased by brothers of Ramabhai
Chagganbhai Prajapati, namely – (1) Joitaram Chagganlal Prajapati (2) Ranchodbhai
Chagganlal Prajapati, by way of registered sale deeds.

3. Subsequently, Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati approached the plaintiffs for

the purposes of selling his share in the parcels of land. Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai

Page |
35
Prajapati represented to the plaintiffs that all the parcels of land which were bought
from Ambalal Dharubhai Patel through registered sale deeds, would be partitioned
between his brothers in the near future and that Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati
would accordingly own 1/3rd share in land bearing Block nos. 64, 65, 67, 70.
Accordingly, an agreement to sell dated 16.03.1995 was executed between Shri
Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati and the plaintiffs.

4. By way of the aforesaid Agreement to Sell dated 16.03.1995, it was agreed that
Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati would sell his 1/3rd share admeasuring 3428
square meters in land bearing Block no. 65, Block no. 65 admeasuring in total 10285
square meters situated in village: Hebatpur, Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad,
for a sale consideration of Rs. 9,77,075/- at an agreed rate of Rs. 95 per square meter.
The plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- till the date of execution of the said
Agreement to Sell dated 16.03.1995, which was also recorded in the said Agreement
to Sell.

5. Thereafter, another Agreement to Sell dated 02.08.1995, was executed between

between Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati and the plaintiffs. It was agreed
therein that Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati would sell his 1/3rd share
(admeasuring 15608 square meters) in all the parcels of land bearing Block nos. 64,
65, 67, 70, situated in village: Hebatpur, Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad, in
favour of the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ―the said land‖ or ―the land in
dispute‖). The total share of Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati in the aforesaid
four parcels of land came to 15608 square meters of land. It was agreed that the land
in dispute would be sold to the plaintiffs for a sale consideration of Rs. 14,82,760/- at
Rs. 95 per square meter of land. Since the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was already paid
by the plaintiffs to Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati, no further amount of
consideration was paid towards the said Agreement to Sell nor was any amount of
consideration mentioned in the said Agreement to Sell dated 02.08.1995. It was also
stated in the said Agreement to Sell that Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati will have to
provide an income tax clearance certificate to the plaintiffs.

6. The Plaintiff states that subsequent to the execution of the Agreement to Sell dated
02.08.1995, the Plaintiffs paid amounts of – (i) Rs. 1,50,000/- on 20.04.1996, (ii) Rs.

Page |
36
50,000/- on 10.10.1996, and (iii) Rs. 25,000 on 15.02.1997. Endorsements of the said
payments were made on last pages of the earlier Agreement to Sell dated 16.03.1995
and signatures of Ramabhai Chagganbhai Patel were also obtained on the said
endorsements. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- was paid to Ramabhai
Chagganbhai Prajapti over and above Rs. 3,50,000/- mentioned in the Agreement to
Sell dated 16.03.1995. Therefore, in total an amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- was paid to
Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati towards consideration of the Agreement to Sell.

7. However, the aforesaid parcels of land bearing Block nos. 64, 65, 67, 70 came to be
partitioned only in the year 2001. The said partition was recorded in the revenue
records vide mutation entry no. 1534, whereby Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati
obtained 1/3rd share in the land bearing Block nos. 64, 65, 67, 70. Accordingly, the
name of Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati was finally entered in the revenue
records against the said land.

8. Subsequently, the plaintiffs approached Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati for

seeking title clearance certificate for the purposes of execution of the sale deed. The
plaintiffs requested for a copy of the alleged partition deed on the basis of which
mutation entry no. 1534 was entered in the revenue records. However, Ramabhai
Chagganbhai Prajapati could not provide the plaintiffs with any copy of the partition
deed. The title of the property not being cleared by Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati,
the plaintiffs were unable to execute the sale deed.

9. Further, in the years 2001-02, the alleged tenants initiated civil as well as tenancy
proceedings with respect certain parcels of land, including the aforesaid parcels of
land bearing Block nos. 64, 65, 67, 70. The said proceedings are pending even on the
date of filing of the present suit.

10. Unfortunately, Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati passed away on 26.11.2003.

Thereafter, once again the plaintiffs approached the legal heirs of Ramabhai
Chagganbhai Prajapati, i.e. the defendants herein, for the purposes of obtaining title
clearance certificate and for execution of the sale deed. However, some of the
defendants herein conveyed to the plaintiffs that Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai
Prajapati had left behind a Will and accordingly they would be initiated appropriate

Page |
37
proceedings for the purposes of obtaining probate of the same. The said defendants
did not provide a copy of the Will to the plaintiffs at the relevant point of time.

11. Subsequently, some of the defendants filed the probate proceedings, being
Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 9 of 2007 before the Hon‘ble District Court,
Ahmedabad (Rural). The said application is pending at the date of filing of the present
suit. Accordingly, since the title of the said land was still not clear, the plaintiffs could
not seek execution of the sale deed, though they were always ready and willing to do
so.

12. To the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiffs, an advertisement was published
on 11.05.2015 in ―Gujarat Samachar‖, whereby objections were invited against sale
of the land in dispute. Accordingly, the plaintiffs vide letter dated raised their
objections wherein it was specifically stated that agreements to sell had been executed
in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs have rights/interest in the said
land. It is pertinent to state that despite the pendency of the probate proceedings, the
defendants have sought to transfer the said land without even awaiting the outcome of
the said probate proceedings. The plaintiffs were awaiting the outcome of the probate
proceedings, prior to seeking execution of the sale deed. However, in view of the said
advertisement dated 11.05.2015, the plaintiffs have been constrained to file the
present suit seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 02.08.1995,
since it appears that the defendants are not willing to perform their part of the contract
i.e. execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs herein.

13. The Plaintiffs submit that they have always been ready and willing to execute the
sale deed. The plaintiffs have time and again represented to Late Shri Ramabhai
Chagganbhai Prajapati as well as the defendants herein at the relevant points of time,
for execution of the sale deed. The Plaintiffs have continuously shown, till the date of
filing of the present suit, that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to execute the sale
deed. The plaintiffs have approached the defendants and/or their predecessor at the
relevant points of time and have requested them to execute the sale deed. The
plaintiffs also had the capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. However, due to
no fault of the plaintiffs, since the defendants and/or their predecessor did not provide
the plaintiffs with a clear title certificate, the plaintiffs were unable to execute the sale

Page |
38
deed. Further, in view of the fact that several proceedings were pending as mentioned
hereinabove; the plaintiffs were not able to get the sale deed executed for the land in
dispute.

14. However, it now appears that the defendants are seeking to transfer the said land
to a third party and that they are not willing to perform their part of the contract, the
plaintiffs are filing the present civil suit for the purposes of seeking specific
performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 02.08.1995.

15. The plaintiffs submit that they have a clear right, title and interest in the land in
dispute and therefore the defendants cannot transfer the land in dispute to any third
party. The plaintiffs have already paid an amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- till the year 1997,
and therefore equities have been created in favour of the plaintiffs herein. The said
payment has been acknowledged and accepted by Shri Ramabhai Chagganbhai Patel,
i.e. the predecessors of the defendants, and the same is reflected from the Agreement
to Sell dated 16.03.1995 and the endorsements made therein.
16. The cause of action for the present suit has arisen within territorial jurisdiction
of this Hon‘ble Court on various dates and grounds, more particularly, narrated in
foregoing plaint.

17. The plaintiff, therefore, prays that:

(A) Pending admission and final disposal of the present suit, this Hon‘ble Court may
be pleased to restrain the defendants from transferring, alienating, selling their share
in the land bearing Block nos. 64, 65, 67, 70, situated in village: Hebatpur, Taluka:
Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad in favour of any third party and/or from creating any
right, title or interest therein in favour of any third party;

(B) Any other relief, which deem fit and proper, be awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
18. An Affidavit in support of the present application is filed separately along with the
application.

Date: /10/2019
Place: Ahmedabad (Plaintiffs)

Page |
39
Verification

I, aged-adult, Indian-Inhabitant, authorized

signatory of the plaintiff company, residing at , , do
hereby verify and state that whatever stated in hereinabove is true to the best of my
knowledge, information, and belief and I believe the same to be true.
Solemnly verified at Ahmedabad on this day of October, 2019.

Plaintiff

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AHMEDABAD (RURAL) AT

AHMEDABAD

Special Civil Suit No. Of 2015

Plaintiffs: Ravin Ranchodbhai Patel and anr.

Versus
Defendant : Legal Heirs of Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati

Affidavit

I, aged-adult, Indian-inhabitant, residing at

, do hereby on solemn affirmation state that
whatever stated in hereinabove is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on this day of October, 2019

Deponent

Page |
40
 6. Plaint for Permanent Injunction

BEFORE THE COURT OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

BHARUCH

Application No: of 2019

Mr. Parth H. Manek,

Male, aged 49 years,
Occu : Business,
Residing at :
B-103, Bhaleshwar Apartment,
Bharuch. ...................................................................................................Applicant

Versus
Mr. Peter Mathew,
Male, aged about 46 years,
Park Avenue Apartment,
Jail Road,
Bharuch. …Respondent

Application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 amendment till date on behalf of the Plaintiff/appellant

TO

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND THE OTHER HONOURABLE JUDGES

Page |
41
OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED:-

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:-

1. That the applicant/plaintiff has filed the accompanying plaint in the above
mentioned suit before this honorable court hearing and the same will take some time.

2. That it is apparent from perusal of grounds as mentioned in the plaint and

accompanying annexed documents therewith that the applicant/plaintiff/appellant has
a very good prima facie case in his favour.

3. That is is very likely that the applicant would succeed.

4. That The balance of convenience is also in favour of the

applicant/plaintiff/appellant. The grounds as mentioned in the plaint may be read as
part of this application as the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

5. That the interest of justice demands that the respondent is restrained from the
property. In case the respondents are not restrained the applicant will suffer
irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

6. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the respondents be restrained from

property in the interest of justice. Such other orders he also passed in favour of the
applicant as deemed fit in facts and circumstances of the case.

DATED : 14/09/2019 Advocate for the applicant

Place : Bharuch.

Page |
42
 BEFORE THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE , AHMEDABAD
(RURAL)
SUIT NO. OF 2019.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Peter James Mathew,
Male, aged about 40 years,
Residing at :
E-201, Lake View Apartment,
Parasnagar,
Shastrinagar,
Ahmedabad.
.… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS

1. Manoj Tanna,
Resident of :
Bridge Apartment,
Near Sabarmati Bridge,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.

2. Dilip Tanna,
Male, adult,
Resident of :
Bridge apartment,
Near Sabarmati Bridge,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. ....................................................DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

Page |
43
1. That the plaintiff is the permanent resident of the above mentioned address in
property as mentioned hereinabove, for the last many year and is living with wife and
minor children, as a tenant.

2. That the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the above said property consisting two
rooms, latrine and kitchen in the above said premises of Rent Rs. 150/- (Rs. 150/-)
p.m. excluding electricity and water charges under the tenancy of late Bhikhu Tanna
who died on 17.10.2013 and late Sh. Bhiku Tanna used to collect the rent from the
plaintiff but late Bhikhu Tanna did not issued any rent receipt to the plaintiff even
after several demands made by the plaintiff but he always used to postpone the issue
of rent receipt.

3. That the plaintiff spent a huge amount on the construction of these two rooms in the
above said premises at the request of Late Sh. Bhikhu Tanna and ShBhikhu Tanna
assured the plaintiff to adjust the said rent (the plaintiff is having the necessary
documents/proofs of material for construction of rooms in the above said property). It
is also pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff looked after late Sh.Bhikhu Tanna
many a times, whenever he fell ill.

4. That at present the plaintiff is having the peaceful possession of the said premises
and is having the whole necessary documents/record regarding possession (photocopy
of Ration Card, School Card is enclosed herewith) but theabove said defendants are
intended to disturbed the peaceful physical possession of the plaintiff of the above
said premises.

5. That the plaintiff is having the whole necessary household goods which are
lying/kept in the above said premises and is living peacefully.
6. That the plaintiff has paid the agreed rent @ Rs. 150/- p.m. to late Sh. Bhikhu
Tanna Oct. 2013. It is also pertinent to mention hare that the legal hairs of late
Sh.Bhikhu Tanna are not in the knowledge of the plaintiff and at present also the
plaintiff is ready to tender the rent before the legal heirs of late Sh.Bhikhu Tanna.

7. That on dt. 30.1.2015 the above said defendant came to the above said premises of
the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the tenanted premises immediately

Page |
44
otherwise the plaintiff would have to face dire consequences, when the plaintiff asked
about their identity then they did not disclose the same, instead started throwing
household goods forcibly and illegally and started to quarrel with the plaintiff when
the local residents/neighbours intervened in the matter then the defendants left the
spot after threatening for dire consequences and to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly
and illegally in the near future with the help of local goondas. The defendants openly
stated that the staff of police station dances at their tune and it is very easy job for
them to dispossess any person or to grab the property of any one with the help of the
police staff.

8. That immediately on the same date the plaintiff rushed to the police station to
lodge his report against the defendants regarding such incident but duty officer did not
lodge the report of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was surprised to see that both the
defendants were already present at the Police Station.

9. That on 10.2.2015, the plaintiff sent a Registered Notice to the defendant no. 1 and
copy to Chowki Incharge Police Station by Regd. A.D. but Police Station staff has
not taken any action against the defendants for reasons best known to them.

10. That on 11.2.2015, the defendants along with two unknown persons/ whom the
plaintiff can recognise by face, came to the above said premises of said property, and
knocked at the door at odd hours and threatened the plaintiff to come out of the room.
The plaintiff saw their faces from gaps of the door and the plaintiff got nervous, and
therefore did not come out oftwo room apartment. The said persons threatened the
plaintiff to vacate the premises immediately. However, then the neighbours gathered
there and they restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the
above said premises forcibly and illegally. When the neighbours threatened them,
they left the spot with a threat to come after one or two days with heavy force to
dispossess the plaintiff from the above said premises forcibly and illegally.

11. That on de. 12.2.2015, the plaintiff again went to the police post Matiala to lodge
the report against the defendants but no Police Officer of P. Post Matiala is ready to
listen against the defendants and they advised the plaintiff to approach to the

Page |
45
competent court of law to seek his remedy and to get injunction order against the
defendants and the police station.

12. That the plaintiff has no other efficacious remedy except to approach to this
Hon'ble court for seeking relief of injunction against the defendants from interfering
in the peaceful possession of the premises of said property.

13. That the cause of action arose on different date when the defendants threatened
the plaintiff to vacate the premises no. 36 Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and threatened
the plaintiff of dire consequences and further to dispossess him from the above
premises bearing no. 36 Uttam Nagar, New Delhi forcibly and illegally. The cause of
action lastly arose on dt. 11.2.2015 when the defendants again threatened and tried to
dispossess the plaintiff from the premises of said property, forcibly and illegally with
the connivance of the Local Police. The cause of action still subsists as the threat of
the defendants to dispossess the plaintiff and to create disturbance in the peaceful
possession of the premises said property continues.

14. That the parties to the suit for the purpose (s) of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.
130/- on which the requisite court fee has affixed.

15. This Hon‟ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit because the part of the
cause of action arose at Delhi and the suit property is situated within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to :-
(a) pass the decree for Permanent Injunctin in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their representatives, employees,
agents etc. from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally from the tenanted
premises of said property and also from interfering in the peaceful possession of the
above said premises.

Page |
46
(b) award cost of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants;

(c) pass such other and further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper on the facts
and in the circumstances of this case.

Plaintiff Through Advocate

Place:

Date:

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Ahmedabad on this 14th day of October 2019 that the contents of paras 1
to .. of the plaint are true to my knowledge derived from the records of the Plaintiff
maintained in the ordinary course of its business, those of paras .. to … are true on
information received and believed to be true and last para is the humble prayer to this
Hon‟ble Court.

Plaintiff

Page |
47
 7. Written statement

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALOL

SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO. 44 OF 2012

Plaintiffs: Bajiben widow of Chamanji Charurji Thakore, and ors.

Versus

Defendants : Bhalaji Chamanji Thakore and ors.

Written statement on behalf of Defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4;

1. It is pertinent to note that the defendant N01,2 and 4 have perused the memo of the
plaint and are conversant with the facts of the present case.

2. At the outset, it is required to be stated that the present plaint is false, frivolous and
vexatious and requires to be dismissed. And we deny all the averments, allegations
and submissions made in the subject suit, which are contrary to or inconsistent with
the record of Defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 and / or what is stated in the present reply
affidavit as if they all are individually and specifically traversed, save and accept
those which are admitted by me herein below. It is humbly stated and submitted that
none of the allegations and / or averments and / or contentions in the appeal may be
presumed as admitted merely because any of them is not expressly dealt with or
replied.

3. At the further outset, it is required to be stated that the contents of the memo of the
plaint as well as application seeking interim injunction on illegal, false, baseless and
are denied hereby. it is required to be stated that the present plaint suffers from delays

Page |
48
and laches and therefore deserves to be dismissed in liminie. it is required to be stated
that the plaintiffs through the present suit seek to belatedly challenge the revenue
entry bearing number 3947 dated 10.03.2000, after a delay of more than eight years. It
is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs also seek to challenge the sale transaction
entered in the year 2007 in question after a period of more than 3 years. It is apparent
that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit with the ulterior motive of extracting
more money from the defendants. The present plaint being filed with ulterior motives
and being barred by limitation deserves to be dismissed.

4. it is required to be stated that the plaintiffs have not initiated any revenue
proceedings to challenge the validity of the aforesaid revenue entry no. 3947. it is
required to be stated that the validity of the aforesaid revenue entry no. 3947 cannot
be examined in the present suit, as the same would be the subject matter of the
revenue authorities. The plaintiffs have apparently not approached the revenue
authorities for challenging the said mutation entry. Therefore also the present suit
deserves to be dismissed.

5. it is required to be stated that the present plaint suffers from non-joinder and
misjoinder of parties, and the same therefore deserves to be dismissed. it is required to
be stated that the plaintiffs have not joined all the persons who were parties to the sale
deeds entered into with the third parties. The said persons being necessary parties, the
present suit deserves to be dismissed with costs.

6. it is required to be stated that the plaintiffs have suppressed certain material facts in
the memo of the present plaint as well as application seeking interim injunction, and
the same therefore deserve to be dismissed.

7. it is required to be stated that the plaintiffs do not have any locus standi to file the
present suit. it is required to be stated that plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, having accepted the
consideration from the sale transactions entered into with the third parties cannot now
challenge the same sale transactions. it is required to be stated that the plaintiff nos. 1
and 2 cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time.

Page |
49
8. it is required to be stated that since the reliefs sought in the present suit do not
deserve to be granted, the application seeking interim injunction also deserves to be
dismissed.

9. With respect to contents of para 1 of the memo of the plaint, the same are denied
hereby. It is denied that the defendants have acted in collusion and have committed
any illegal activities. It is denied hereby that the defendants have dishonestly induced
or cheated the plaintiffs and have created false sale deeds. It is denied that the
defendants have committed any breach of trust.

10. With respect to contents of para 2 of the memo of the plaint, no comments are
offered hereby.

11. With respect to contents of para 3 of the memo of the plaint, the same are denied
hereby. It is required to be stated that plaintiff no. 1 is the mother of plaintiff nos. 3 to
6. Whereas, plaintiff no. 2 is the brother of plaintiff nos. 3 to 6. It is required to be
stated that upon demise of Late Shri Chamanji Chaturji Thakore, it was agreed
between plaintiff nos. 3 to 6 and defendant nos. 1 to 4, along with plaintiff nos. 1 and
2, that they would release their right, title and interest in the disputed property. It is
required to be stated that plaintiff nos. 3 to 6 had agreed to waive their right, title,
interest in the disputed property in favour of defendant nos. 1 to 4 along with plaintiff
nos. 1 and 2. Upon the basis of the said agreement, an application was submitted to
the Ld. Mamlatdar, for the purpose of entering the names of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2
along with the defendant nos. 1 to 4 in the revenue records. Subsequently, defendant
nos. 1 to 4 and plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 had with open eyes entered into sale deeds with
third parties with respect to certain parcels of disputed property. Under these
circumstances, It is required to be stated that plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, being related to
plaintiff nos. 3 to 6 and having entered into sale transactions, cannot now contend that
plaintiff nos. 3 to 6 were not aware of the afore-stated revenue entry no. 3947 or about
the sale transactions with third parties. After a period of more than 12 years, it is not
open for the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 to contend that the aforesaid revenue entry was
entered into the revenue records under misrepresentation or duress. It is denied that
the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 have misled plaintiffs by entering names of defendant
nos. 1 to 4 along with names of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, in the revenue records vide

Page |
50
revenue entry no. 3974 dated 10.03.2000. The said revenue entry has also been
certified. I further state and submit that plaintiff nos. 3 to 6 were residing with
plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, on the date when the aforesaid revenue entry no. 3974 was
entered in the revenue records. It is therefore not open for plaintiff nos. 3 to 6 to
contend that they were not aware of the revenue entry being entered in the revenue
records. It is denied that the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 have created any false
inheritance certificate or any false sale deeds. It is denied that defendant nos. 1, 2 and
4 have dishonestly induced or breached the trust of the plaintiffs. It is denied that
defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 have illegally and wrongly entered the aforesaid revenue
entry in the revenue records and have wrongly released the right, title, interests of
plaintiff nos. 3 to 6 in the disputed property. It is denied that the defendant nos. 1, 2
and 4 have produced any false inheritance certificate before the Ld. Mamlatdar.

12. With respect to contents of para 4 of the memo of the plaint, the same are denied
hereby. it is required to be stated that the parcel of land bearing Block No. 312 has
already been sold to defendant nos. 4 and 5 for valuable consideration, who in-turn
appear to have sold it to defendant nos. 6 to 7. Ultimately, the said land has been sold
to defendant nos. 10 to 12. it is required to be stated that third party rights have
already been created with respect to Block no. 312 and the same cannot be held to be
invalid. it is required to be stated that the plaintiffs have not joined all the persons
who have sold the land to defendant nos. 5 and 6 vide sale deeds numbered 6333 of
2010 and 6334 of 2010. The plaint therefore deserves to be dismissed on the ground
of non-joinder and misjoinder of parties also. It is denied that the defendant nos. 1, 2
and 4 had concocted facts and created false affidavits to enter their names in the
revenue records. It is denied that the names of plaintiff nos. 3 to 6 were deliberately
left out from the revenue records. It is denied that defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 have
wrongly or illegally sold the land bearing Block no. 312 to defendant nos. 5 and 6
through sale deeds registered as 6333 of 2010 and 6334 of 2010. It is denied that the
defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 have wrongly or illegally sold the land bearing Block no.
279 to defendant nos. 13 and 14 vide sale deed dated 12.02.2007. It is required to be
stated that the plaintiffs cannot challenge the said sale deed dated 12..02.2007, since
the same is barred by limitation. It is required to be noted that plaintiff nos. 1 and 2
have entered into the aforesaid sale transactions with open eyes and have received
consideration for the same. Therefore, it is not open for plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 to

Page |
51
contend that the aforesaid sale transactions were illegal or invalid. It is required to be
stated that it is not open for plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 to blow hot and cold at the same
time. It is required to be noted that the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 having received valuable
consideration for the aforesaid sale transactions do not have any locus standi to file
the present suit and the same therefore deserves to be dismissed on this ground also.
Therefore, the present suit deserves to be dismissed in limine.

13. With respect to contents of paras 5 and 6 of the memo of the plaint, the same are
denied hereby. It is denied that the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 have sold the aforesaid
parcels of land to third parties for a very high premium. It is denied that defendant
nos. 1, 2 and 4 have threatened or coerced the plaintiffs in any manner as has been
alleged by them. It is denied that the right, title or interests of the plaintiff are likely to
be affected. It is required to be stated that plaintiff nos. 3 to 6 have consciously and
out of free will, have waived their right, title and interest in the disputed property in
favour of defendant nos. 1 to 4 along with plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, as far as back in the
year 2000, pursuant to the family settlement. It is required to be stated that the present
suit has been filed by the plaintiffs only with the mala fide and ulterior motives to
extract more money from defendant nos. 1 to 4. Accordingly, It is required to be
stated that the present suit along with the application filed seeking interim injunction
deserves to be dismissed on this ground also. It is required to be stated that the
plaintiffs have not made out any prima facie case in their favour. It is required to be
noted that the balance of convenience is also in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4. I
state that the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 are in possession of the disputed property and
no harm would be caused to the plaintiffs, if interim injunction is not granted in their
favour. It is required to be stated that defendants are in possession of the disputed
property, as is reflected from the report submitted by the court commissioner.
Therefore, the interim reliefs as sought for by the plaintiffs do not deserve to be
granted.

14. Para 7 of the memo of the plaint is the prayer and the same do not deserve to be
granted. It is required to be stated that the present suit along with the application
seeking interim injunction deserve to be dismissed.

Page |
52
15. It is required to be stated that the present written statement may not be treated as a
final written statement. I hereby reserve my right to file a further written statement as
and when necessary.

Dated. 14/10/2019
Kalol

AFFIDAVIT

I, , aged adult, Defendent herein, resident of

Kalol, do hereby on solemn affirmation state as under :

I am the defendent herein. Therefore, I am competent to swear to this Written

Statement. I have read the Written Statement. Contents of its Paras are true to my
knowledge.

Solemnly affirmed on this 14th day of October, 2019 at Kalol.

DEPONENT
Identified by me

Page |
53
 8. Interlocutory application

BEFORE THE COURT OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

BHARUCH
Application No: of 2019

Mr. Parth H. Manek,

Male, aged 49 years,
Occu : Business,
Residing at :
B-103, Bhaleshwar Apartment,
Bharuch. ...................................................................................................Applicant

Versus
Mr. Peter Mathew,
Male, aged about 46 years,
Park Avenue Apartment,
Jail Road,
Bharuch. …Respondent

Application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 amendment till date on behalf of the Plaintiff/appellant

TO
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND THE OTHER HONOURABLE JUDGES
OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD.

Page |
54
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED:-

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:-

1. That the applicant/plaintiff has filed the accompanying plaint in the above
mentioned suit before this honorable court hearing and the same will take some time.

2. That it is apparent from perusal of grounds as mentioned in the plaint and

accompanying annexed documents therewith that the applicant/plaintiff/appellant has
a very good prima facie case in his favour.

3. That is is very likely that the applicant would succeed.

4. That The balance of convenience is also in favour of the

applicant/plaintiff/appellant. The grounds as mentioned in the plaint may be read as
part of this application as the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

5. That the interest of justice demands that the respondent is restrained from the
property. In case the respondents are not restrained the applicant will suffer
irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

6. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the respondents be restrained from

property in the interest of justice. Such other orders he also passed in favour of the
applicant as deemed fit in facts and circumstances of the case.

DATED : 14/10/2019 Advocate for the applicant

Place : Bharuch.

Page |
55
 Unit: 2 Criminal Drafting

1. CRIMINAL REVISION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT,

AT Ahmedabad

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. OF 2019

Rameshbhai G Patel
Age: 24
Occupation : Agriculturist
Resident of Odhav ,
District : Ahmedabad …. Applicant
(Original Accused No. 1 )
Versus

1. State of Gujarat
(Notice to be served through the Ld. Public Prosecutor)

2.Rajnibhai Labhubhai Jiyani

Resident of Kanbha gam
District : Ahmedabad …..Opponents
(No.2 is Original Complainant)

Sub: Criminal Revision Application U/s. 397 R/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the
impugned order passed by the J.M.F.C. Ahmedabad in I. CR 3/16 dated 11.03.2019.

The above named applicant humbly submits as under:

Page |
56
1) The applicant is original accused no.1 in the complaint registered as I.CR.No. 3/16
with Odhav Police Station. The applicant preferred anticipatory bail application
before the Hon‘ble High Court, However it was withdrawn after hearing. The
applicant preferred to surrender himself before the Hon‘ble trial Court on 11.03.2019
with application contending the reasons therein.

2) The applicant further states that the trial Court issued notice to the investigating
officer upon the said application. At the time of hearing, the investigating officer
remained present alongwith papers and submitted his written objections. The trial
Court after hearing the advocate for the applicant and the investigating officer was
pleased to passed impugned order rejecting the application in toto. Hence, aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 11.03.2019 in
I.Cr.No. 3/16, the applicant prefers the present revision application on the following
amongst other grounds which may be raised at the time of hearing.

GROUNDS

a) The impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and illegal.

b) The trial Court grossly erred in interpretation of the provision and ratio laid down
by the Hon‘ble High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Versus Karamsinh
Nayabhai Patel, reported in 1986 (1) GLR 673.

c) The trial Court passed the impugned order without application of mind and it has
resulted in miscarriage of justice. It has failed to appreciate the scope of Sec.44 of
Cr.P.C. while deciding such application.

d) The trial Court grossly erred in interpretation of the provision with regards to
surrendering of accused before the Magistrate and confused in appreciating the
manner in which judicial custody and Police custody is to be ordered. Further the trial
Court failed to appreciate that the accused surrendered before the Court in the
circumstances mentioned in the application and went on deciding the application as if
applicant is seeking bail. If the application is perused, it is urged that the applicant is

Page |
57
ready and willing to abide by the conditions put by the Court. The applicant also
prayed for certain directions from the trial Court if he is directed to be arrested or sent
in Police Custody. However, the trial court found it otherwise and only considered the
application as if the accused is seeking judicial custody. Hence, there is no question of
creating an obstruction or an obstacle in the process of investigation.

e) The applicant specifically apprehends that the way investing officer is threatening
the applicant and his family, there are all chances of physical and mental torture in
Police custody. It is further submitted that the investigating officer conveyed to the
applicant‘s family that he personally wish to arrest the applicants from his residence
and wants to set an example by beating him in public. The applicant‘s apprehension is
itself supported by the written objections filed by the investigating officer before the
trial Court. It is mentioned in the objection that the Police wants to remove fear from
the local public and the investigating officer came to know from the talks during the
investigation that the applicant is lending money illegally and thereby if he is arrested
these people will also be freed from his fear. Such conducts of the investigating
officer is more than the duty of investigation and this is nothing but abuse of powers
hence it requires to be supervised by the Court to prevent Police atrocity.

f) The applicant further submits that the applicant is always ready and willing to co-
operate with the investigation. However, he is not being arrested whenever he
visits the Police Station and nor from the Court premises. Therefore, the applicant
had to surrender before the Court however, the trial Court did not appreciate the
grounds mentioned in the application and submitted at the time of hearing. Hence, the
impugned order requires to be set aside.

g) The applicant further humbly submits that the applicant will not create any
obstruction or an obstacle in the process of investigation even if the applicant is
directed to be handed over in the police custody by the Hon‘ble Court. The Hon‘ble
trial Court ought to have directed to Police to arrest the applicant and to follow the
guidelines of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in various judgements to prevent Police
atrocity.

Page |
58
3) It is humbly submitted this Hon‘ble court is having jurisdiction to hear and decide
the present revision application U/s.397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. as the impugned
order is of final nature and not interlocutory.

4) The present revision application is filed within the period of limitation. The
certified copy of impugned order is annexed herewith.

5) The applicant further submits that the applicant has not preferred any other
application or petition with the same subject matter before any other court.

6) Therefore, the applicant humbly prays that

a) This Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to allow the present revision application and
set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Ahmedabad in I Cr.No. 3/16 registered with Odhav Police Station.
Further this Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to order the trial Court to decide surrender
application and direct the arrest in Police custody and to prevent the abuse of Police
as per guidelines of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in various judgements.

b) This Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to call for record and proceedings of in I
Cr.No. 3/16 registered with Savarkundla (Rural) Police Station pending before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Savarkundla.

c) This Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to grant any other and further relief as may be
deemed fit and proper.

Place : Ahmedabad Advocate for the Applicant.

Date : /04/2019

Page |
59
AFFIDAVIT

I, Rameshbhai G Patel Son of Gautam Bhai Patel Age 57, Hindu, Male, Occupation:
Agriculturist, Residing at Odhav, Ahmedabad do hereby solemnly affirm and state on
oath as under, that what is stated in Para 1 to 6 bare facts and the same to the best of
my knowledge is true and correct and I believe it to be true. Paragraph 6 contains
prayer.

Solemnly affirm by me on this day of April 2019

Deponent

2. APPLICATION U/S.125 OF CR. PC FOR GRANT OF

MAINTENANCE

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL
APPLICATION NO. _ OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF :-

1. Smt. Shrshtiben Rana W/o Sunnyraj Rana

R/o Gandhinager

2. Master Raj Rana S/o Sunnyraj Rana

Page |
60
R/o Gandhinager
COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS

Sunnyraj Rana S/o Vishnubhai Rana

R/o Ahmedabad RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
The Complainant above named most respectfully submits as under :-

1. That Complainant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent while
Complainant No. 2 is the legitimate son of the Respondent. Both the Complainants
are residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court.

2. That Complainant No.1 was married to the Respondent according to the Hindu
Rites and ceremonies on 1/1/2017 - at New Ahmedabad and Complainant No. 2 was
born out of their wedlock on 1/9/2018. Complainant No. 2 is staying with
Complainant No. 1 at present.

3. That Complainant No. 1 and Respondent stayed together after their marriage and
for the last two years proceeding.

4. That sometime during the period June-July, 2019, the matrimonial life of
Complainant No. 1 and the Respondent got disturbed on account of the illegitimate
affair of the Respondent with a girl named Mrs. A. Complainant No. 1 made best
possible efforts to persuade the Respondent to desist from indulging in an affair
outside their wedlock. However, the same had no effect on the Respondent. Rather,
the behaviour of the Respondent towards Complainant No. 1 became rude, cruel and
oppressive, and finally on 24/08/2019, the Respondent compelled Complainant No. 1
to leave the matrimonial home along with Complainant No. 2, since then, the
Complainants are staying with Complainant No. 1‟s father.

Page |
61
5. That the Complainant No.1 has made repeated attempts to join the Respondent in
the matrimonial home. However, the Respondent has refused to take back the
Complainants and has clearly informed Complainant No. 1 that he was planning to
marry Mrs. A though the same is not permissible under law. As such, the Respondent
has deserted the Complainants without any reasonable cause.

6. That the Respondent is liable to maintain the Complainants who have repeatedly
requested the Respondent to provide them the appropriate maintenance. However, the
Respondent has not only refused/neglected to maintain the Complainants, but has also
refused to ever part with/return the articles belonging to Complainant No. 1 towards
the dowry and Stridhan which are lying at the Respondent‟s house.

7. That the Respondent is a man of status and is working as a Wing Commander in

Indian Air Force. He is getting monthly emoluments of about Rs. 2,50,000 per month
and as such has sufficient means to maintain himself and the Complainants. He has no
encumbrances or liabilities except that of maintenance of the Complainants.

8. That Complainant No. 1 has no independent source of livelihood and as such is

unable to maintain herself. She is staying with her father at Gandhinager and as such
both the Complainants are dependant upon him.

9. That Complainant No. 2 is a minor and is also staying with Complainant No. 1. He
is studying in Delhi Public School, New Delhi, and his monthly expenditure
including school fees, dresses etc. etc. is more than Rs. 50,000 Apart form this,
Complainant No. 1 has also kept a maidservant to properly look after Complainant
No. 2 and is paying her Rs. 10,000per month which is presently being borne by her
father.

10. That the Complainants are residing at Delhi. This Hon‟ble Court therefore is
competent to entertain and try this petition.

Page |
62
PRAYER

11. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the orders for maintenance of the
Complainants be passed in favour of the Complainant and against the Respondent
directing the Respondent to pay the monthly allowance of Rs. 20,000 towards the
maintenance of Complainant No. 1 and Rs.50,000 towards the maintenance of
Complainant No. 2. The costs of these proceedings be also awarded to the Petitioner.

COMPLAINANTS

THROUGH

Delhi.
Dated :

ADVOCATE

AFFIDAVIT

I, Shrshtiben Rana W/o Sunnyraj Rana ,Age 35, Hindu, FemaleResiding at

Gandhinager do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under, that what is stated
in Para 1 to 10 bare facts and the same to the best of my knowledge is true and correct
and I believe it to be true. Paragraph 11contains prayer.

Solemnly affirm by me on this day of 2017

Deponent

Page |
63
 3. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 14, 21, 22, AND 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Kanubhai Manubhai Soni,

Son of ManubhaiSoni,
Age 57, Hindu, Male,
Occupation: Electrician,
Residing at F/4 Jethabhai
Apartment,Jethabhai Park,
Paldi,Ahmedabad

Versus

1. The State of Gujarat

Notice to be served through
Learned Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Gujarat
2. Police Inspector
Paldi Police Station
Ahmedabad City,
Ahmedabad

3. Jay Kanubhai Goswami,

Page |
64
Son of KanubhaiGoswami,
Age: Adult, Hindu, Male,
Residing at KHodiyarKrpua,
Shital Nagar, Behind Jalaram
Society, Besides Jaldhara
Apartment,Junagadh,
Gujarat-360001 …Respondents

TO HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER ESQUIRE HON’BLE

JUDGES OF THE HIGHCOURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETHS AS UNDER:-

1. The Petitioner is a national and a citizen of India and is entitled to the fundamental
rights enshrined under the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner‘s daughter Miss Srushti Girishkumar Soni
(herein after referred as Corpus for sake of brevity) went missing since 12.8.2018.

3. The petitioner states that the corpus used to do marketing job and also used to do
ITTA classes from S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad. The corpus used to do marketing job
pertaining to website making regularly. On 12.8.2018 the corpus went out for the job
work only and said that she will come back by evening as she used to come daily. On
the same day at 4:45 p.m., the corpus called the petitioner and said that she will return
back to home within half an hour. However the corpus did not return back even by
8:00 p.m. and when the petitioner tried to call the corpus on her mobile phone, it was
kept showing switched off.

4. The petitioner states that the wife of the petitioner was not well and the brother-in-
law of the petitioner along with his wife came to see her. The petitioner informed
about the situation to his brother-in-law and also expressed his suspicion with regards

Page |
65
to involvement of the respondent no. 3 herein. The petitioner apprehended
involvement of the respondent no. 3 and out of his suspicion, the petitioner called the
respondent no. 3 on his mobile number +91 9979885946. When the petitioner asked
the respondent no. 3 for the whereabouts of the corpus he said that they have just
parted some time ago near N.I.D. Ahmedabad. The petitioner and his brother-in-law
started searching for the corpus near N.I.D. Ahmedabad and after some time
discovered the Scooty, bearing vehicle registration No. GJ-01-FW-0449, which the
corpus used to use and had also used on the day of the incident. Despite making
several efforts, the petitioner and his relative could not able to trace the corpus and
thereafter when the petitioner again tried to contact the respondent no. 3, even the
mobile phone of the respondent no. 3 was kept on showing switched off.

5. The petitioner thereafter immediately rushed to the Paldi Police Station and filed a
missing complaint of his daughter i.e. the corpus herein on 13.8.2018at around 12:30
a.m. A copy of the complaint-dated 13.8.2018 registered with Paldi Police Station
Ahmedabad is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A.

6. The petitioner states that thereafter the petitioner kept on searching for the
whereabouts of the corpus and tried contacting her and the respondent no. 3 herein as
well but all efforts resulted in vain. The petitioner could, however able to contact the
respondent no. 3 with help of one of the police officers and upon asking the
whereabouts of the corpus and firm insistence to hear the voice of his daughter, the
respondent no. 3 said he will make sure that she would call back the petitioner and
asked to wait. After waiting for some time, the respondent no. 3 called the petitioner
and the corpus herein only said ―I am good wherever I am‖ and then the phone was
hanged up. Immediately after some time on the same day i.e. on 13.8.2018the corpus
sent a document on whatsApp message containing soft copy of a protection
application, which she alleges to have been made by her. It was alleged in the
application that she apprehends that her parents will fix her marriage against her will
and wish, It was also stated that she is major now and capable to give consent and
also to think for herself. It was further stated that she wants to focus on her career.
Further along with the protection application, there is one affidavit, which was done
on a Non Judicial Stamp of Rs. 20/-. It clearly seems that there is an apparent
contravention between the wordings in a protection application and affidavit made on

Page |
66
a Non Judicial stamp paper because in a protection application it was alleged that if
anything happens to the corpus, her parents would be responsible for that, whereas in
a Non Judicial stamp paper, though the wordings appears to be the same, no such
allegation is made against the parents. The petitioner therefore strongly apprehends
that the protection application and the affidavit, both are scripted and seems to have
been premeditated and concocted by the respondent no. 3 herein. The corpus was
coerced, threatened and forced to allege the same.A copy of the whole whatsApp
document containing protection application and an affidavit are annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure-B collectively.

7. The petitioner states the corpus was brain washed and has been under the coercion
and influence of the respondent no. 3 herein. The petitioner further states that the
petitioner and his relative searched on the Facebook profile of the respondent no. 3
and also got enquired about the respondent no. 3 and to the utter shock and dismay the
petitioner learnt that the respondent no. 3 is already married and also has a minor
child as well. It is evident from the Facebook profile that the respondent no. 3 is
married. A copy of the documents extracted from Facebook establishing the marital
status of the respondent no. 3 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C
collectively.

8. The petitioner states that the petitioner was born on 12.2.1994 the same is evident
from the birth certificate therefore the corpus is 25 years of age and the same is major.
A copy of the birth certificate is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-D.

9. The petitioner states that the daughter i.e. corpus of the petitioner is a major and the
same is held back by the respondent no. 3 against the will of the corpus, the
respondent no. 3 is a head strong person and when the petitioner tried to talkwith the
respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 3 had threaten the petitioner as well.

10. The petitioner states that the respondent no.3 is wrongfully confining the corpus
against the wish and will of the corpus and also against the wish and will of her
parents. At present she is helpless at the hands of respondent no. 3. The corpus is
confined against her wish and the petitioner apprehends that there is a threat to the life

Page |
67
of the corpus. The corpus is also required to be released from the illegal detention of
respondent no.3.

11. The petitioner states that the corpus is major and is capable to give consent and
also to think for her however looking at the present case and circumstances it appears
that the corpus is acting under the influence and coercion of the respondent no. 3
herein. Therefore the petitioner submits that the corpus is held against her wish and
will and the same is breach of article 19 (1) (d) & (e) and 21 of the Constitution of
India.

12. The Petitioner craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds
mentioned hereinabove if need arises to do so.

13. The Petitioner states that he has no other equally efficacious remedy but to
approach this Hon‘ble Court by way of this application.

14. In view of aforesaid premises, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that:

A. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of HABEAS CORPUS or any other

writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent no. 2 to produce the
corpus from illegal confinement of the respondent no. 3 before this Hon‘ble Court and
to give her custody to the petitioner.

C. YOUR LORDSHIPS be please to issue a writ of mandamus directing the

respondent no. 2 to provide police protection to the petitioner.

D. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to pass such further orders as may be deemed fit
in the interest of Justice.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER HEREIN DUTY BOUND

SHAL FOREVER PRAY.

Page |
68
Date: 19.8.2018
Place: Ahmedabad

Advocate for Petitioner

AFFIDAVIT

I, KanubhaiManubhaiSoni, Son of ManubhaiSoni,Age 57, Hindu, Male, Occupation:

Electrician,Residing at F/4 Jethabhai Apartment, Jethabhai Park, Paldi, Ahmedabad
do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under, that what is stated in Para 1 to
13 bare facts and the same to the best of my knowledge is true and correct and I
believe it to be true. Paragraph 14 contains prayer.

Solemnly affirm by me on this 18th day of August 2018

Deponent

Page |
69
 4. Special Leave Petition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICATION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No. OF 2016

(FROM THE FINAL JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.11.2015 PASSED

BY THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 305-DB OF 2013)

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Subeg Singh
R/o 32,mahipet nagar, Punjab
lodged in Model Jail, Chandigarh … PETITIONER/ORIGINAL ACCUSED
VERSUS
1. Union Territory of Chandigarh
through Home Secretary, RESPONDENT

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE

136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

To,

The Hon‟ble Chief Justice of India

And his Companion Justices of
The Supreme Court of India
The humble petition of the
Above named petitioner

Page |
70
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. That the present Special leave Petition (Criminal.) is filed against order dated
26.11.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal
Appeal No. 305-DB of 2013, titled ―Subeg Singh & Anr., versus The State Union
Territory of Chandigarh‖ whereby the Hon‟ble Court dismissed the appeal of the
petitioner.

2. That the present petition raises an important question of law for consideration
before this Hon‟ble Court.

3. BRIEF FACTS

On the night intervening 11/12.2.2013 murder of Shri Bachna Ram, who was a cook
and domestic servant of Shri Devinder Singh Brar, resident of house No. 53, Sector
28-A Chandigarh, was committed in the kitchen of his house when Shri Devinder
Singh Brar and his sister Smt. Gurmail Kaur were in Aurngabad. The F.I.R. was
registered on the statement of Capt Jagat Pal Singh PW-11 who resides in the
neighbourhood of house No. 53. The offence came into light when Smt. Babita the
sweeper of House No. 53 informed Capt. Jagat Pal Singh PW-11 that on 11.2.2013
and again on 13.2.2013. Smt. Babita informed Capt. Jagat Pal Singh PW-11. On the
information given by Catpain Jagat pal Singh, PW-11 S.I. Puran Chand aforesaid
recorded D.D.R. No. 46 dated 13.2.2013 in the Rojnamcha of the police-Station East,
Chandigarh and formed a Police party and the came to House No. 53. The
investigation of this case remained pending with S.I. Puran Chand up to 8.3.2013. The
police remained unsuccessful in tracing out the crime till 8.4.2013. On that day,
Balwan Singh S.I. PW-24 of the CIA staff, took over the investigation of this case. He
along with members of the police party including S.I. Partap Sing PW-23 visited
House No. 53. Sector 28-A Chandigarh where Mr. Devinder Singh Brar PW-12 was
present. In his presence, appellant Gurdev Singh was interrogated and he made certain
disclosures after which the further story unfolded. After completion of the
investigation the accused were challaned on the charges under Section 120-B,
392/120-B, 302/34, 302/114, I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge

Page |
71
framed against them and claimed trial. The Court of Sh. B.S.Bedi, Session Judge,
Chandigarh convicted the accused U/s. 120-B, 302/34 and in alternative 302/114 IPC.

4. That the copy of the Trial Court judgment passed by Sessions Judge Chandigarh
convicting and sentencing the petitioner in Sessions Case No.15 of 2013 U/s. 120-B,
302/34 and in alternative 302/114 IPC is Annexure P-1.

5. GROUNDS

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the Petitioner approaches
this Hon‟ble Court by way of Special Leave Petition on the following amongst other
grounds:-

A. Because the judgment and order dated 26.11.2015passed by the Hon‟ble High
Court which dismissed the appeal of the appellant is contrary to law and facts and
hence the same is liable to set aside both on the point of law and equity.
B. Because the prosecution only produced the partisan or the interested persons as
witnesses in order to prove the commission of crime by the petitioner. This fact
doubts the truthfulness of the case of prosecution.

C. Because the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence
and has thus not presented the true version.

D. Because the prosecution has miserable failed to prove its case beyond doubt
against the petitioner.

E. Because the witnesses have not deposed correctly and there is discrepancy in the
depositions of witnesses and the conviction of the petitioner is bad.

F. Because the Hon‟ble Court ignored the fact to be considered in the case was as to
whether the evidence of PW-5 Gurpartap Singh, the approver, was reliable and if so
whether there was corroboration to his evidence on material particulars so as to
warrant conviction. It is high-lighted that it was a case of no evidence from the side of

Page |
72
the prosecution and, therefore, the evidence of the approver and other circumstances,
corroborated by his statement cannot be the base of conviction of the appellant.

G. Because Gurpartap Singh PW-5 lost his status as an approver when he appeared
before the learned Committing Magistrate and his statement was recorded as PW-1 on
11.9.1995. The relevant portion of the same is as follows:-

―Before 7.4.2012 I had no conversation with anybody. On 7.4.2012 my self, accused

Subeg Singh and accused Nand Singh were coming from Rajpura to Chandigarh on a
Motorcycle. I had come to Chandigarh on that date for the first time. When we
crossed Zirakpur, we were apprehended on the first Chowk by the Chandigarh Police.
From there we were apprehended and implicated in this case. I do not know where
Sector 28 is. I was threatened by the Police that I should give a statement in favour of
the Polcie otherwise I would be involved in a TADA case and should suffer
imprisonment for whole of the life. In the Jail also, the police people used to visit me
and threaten and intimidate me. I made statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate
on account of fear of the police. I have nothing more to say about this Case‖

H. Because the above statement will show that the tender of pardon given to
Gurpartap Singh by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 1.5.2012
was no, more available and he lost the status of an approver. It is stated here that the
Learned Committing Magistrate was entirely wrong in permitting the cross-
examination of Gurpartap Singh by the prosecution by declaring him hostile. This
could not have been done for the simple reason that he did not attain the status of a
witness. This being so, all the proceedings after 11.9.2012 with regard to the
examination of Gurpartap Singh as a witness by the Learned committing Magistrate
or by the Learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh stood vitiated being totally illegal. It is
submitted that from the date 11.5.2012 when Gurpartap Singh made the above
statement, he is to be taken as an accused and not an approver, he had made altogether
different statement from the one alleged to have been made after alleged acceptance
of tender of pardon.

6. That the Petitioner has not filed any other Special Leave Petition against the
Impugned Order dated 26.11.20015before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India.

Page |
73
7. PRAYER

In the premises the Petitioner herein prays that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be
pleased to:

a) Grant special leave to appeal to the petitioner against judgment and order
dated26.11.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal
Appeal No. 305-DB of 2013, titled ―Subeg Singh & Anr., versus The State Union
Territory of Chandigarh‖

b) Pass any other order which this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner.

DRAWN AND FILED BY

NEW DELHI ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

DRAWN ON:
FILED ON:

AFFIDAVIT

I, Subeg Singh S/o Yespal Singh ,Age 57, Hindu, Male, Occupation:
Electrician,Residing at 32,mahipet nagar, Punjab do hereby solemnly affirm and state
on oath as under, that what is stated in Para 1 to 6 bare facts and the same to the best
of my knowledge is true and correct and I believe it to be true. Paragraph 7 contains
prayer.

Solemnly affirm by me on this day of 2016

Page |
74
 5. APPLICATION U/S. 437 OF CR. PC FOR GRANT OF BAIL

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT NO. 15 AT

AHMEDABAD CITY

Criminal Misc. Application No: /2019

(1) Hardeep Harish Bhai Yadav

Gender-Male, Aged 32, Occupation: Service

(2) Harish Bhai Chhaganlal Yadav

Age: 58, Occupation: Auto Driver

(3) Jayshreeben Hareshbhai Yadav

Age: 49

(4) Vinita Hareshbhai Yadav

Age: 26

(5) Dhara Hareshbhai Yadav

Age: 22

Address of 1 to 5: 202, Divya bhumi Avenue, Raambuag, Jagabhai Park, Maninagar,

Ahmedabad- 380008. … Appellants/ Original Accuse

V/s.

(1) State of Gujarat

Notice to be served through
The Public Prosecutor, At Metro Politan Magistrate Court no.15, Ahmedabad

… Respondent

Page |
75
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 437 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE FOR REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH FIR NO. 10/2019
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION U/S SECTION 294(KH),
506(2), 498(A), 114 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 & 7 OF DOWREY PROHIBITION
ACT.

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANTS ABOVE-NAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The petitioners above named most respectfully submits that the petitioners has filed
this application for regular bail under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in
connection with the FIR No. I/10/2019 registered with Maninagar police station
Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under section U/S Section 498(A), 294(KH),
506(2), and 114 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.

2. It is submitted that in pursuance to the above referred above FIR the petitioners
came to be arrested on 12/03/2019 and thereafter investigation authority produced
before this Hon‘ble Court on the same day.

3. Petitioners therefore, left with no alternative efficacious remedy, prefers this

application before this Hon'ble Court praying for being granted regular bail on
following grounds which are laid down without prejudice to each other and on such
grounds as may be argued by the learned counsel at the time of hearing of the
application.

GROUNDS

A. The petitioners states that they are not committed any crime as alleged and that he
has been unnecessarily roped in as accused.

Page |
76
B. It is respectfully submitted by the present petitioners that bare perusal of the
criminal complaint would reveal that there are no direct or indirect allegations against
present applicants at all. The petitioners has not played any role with respect to the
alleged offences and looking to contents and allegations, it cannot be said that the
present petitioners are guilty and therefore, the petitioners are required to be released
on regular bail.

C. The petitioners respectfully submits that on 12.02.2019 FIR was registered for the
offences punishable under section U/S Section 498(A) 294(KH), 506(2), and 114 of
Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and before that
petitioners were cooperated with the investigation and for that on 28.11.2018 accuse
no.1 issued letter to the Maninagar police station for fair investigation. Copy of the
letter dated 28.11.2018 along with receipts of India Post are produced herewith and
marked as annexure-A. It is further submitted that petitioners never harassed
complainant in any way. Copy of the Family photographs produced herewith and
marked as annexure-B. It cannot be said that the present applicants are guilty and
therefore, the petitioners are required to be released on regular bail.

D. The petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Mohansingh Vs. Union
Territory reported in AIR 1978 SC 1095 and judgment of Hon‘ble High Court of
Gujarat in Vishal Kanailal Punjabi Vs. The state of Gujarat that bail may be granted
without entering into the merits of the case. There is no apprehension of tempering the
evidence. Therefore, the petitioner may kindly be released on bail.

E. The petitioner respectfully submits that petitioners were arrested on 12.03.2019

and on the same day produced before this Hon‘ble Court. It is submitted that the
present petitioners has no past criminal antecedent. The petitioners are residing at
Address mentioned in the cause title with his family. The petitioners are not likely to
temper with the evidences as the same has been collected by the Investigation agency.
Therefore, the petitioners may kindly be released on regular bail.
F. That ―bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception‖. It is also observed that
refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand,
(1977) 4 SCC 308, this Court opined:

Page |
77
G. In the view of the above it is clear that the custody of the petitioner may not be
required by the investigating officer and therefore, applicant relying on Judgment of
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr (2014(8) SCC
273), the petitioner may kindly be released on bail by enforcing stringent conditions
upon the petitioner.

4. The petitioners has no other alternative efficacious remedy but to approach this
HON‘BLE Court by way of this Application.

5. The petitioners submits that there is no other application filed by the petitioner
earlier, with regards to the subject matter of this application in any court of law in
India including the HON‘BEL Supreme Court Of INDIA.

6. The petitioners Craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete rescind any of the above
ground, If need arise to do so.

7. The petitioner, Therefore, pray that : -

A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to release the petitioners on regular bail in

connection with the FIR No.10/2019 registered with Maninagar police station
Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under section U/S Section 498(A) 294(KH),
506(2), and 114 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act on such terms and conditions as maybe deemed fit and proper by the HON‘BEL
Court in the interest of justice;

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such other further relief (s) as may
be deemed in the interest of justice;

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE APPLICANT SHALL
IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.

Date:
Place: Ahmedabad
Signature of the Petitioner

Page |
78
 6. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR. P. C. FOR
ANTICIPATORY BAIL

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE ,

AT JUNAGADH.

Criminal Misc. Application No. of 2019

Applicant : Rakeshbhai G Patel

Versus

Opponent : State of Gujarat,

Notice to be served through :
Public Prosecutor, Junagadh.

Application under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for anticipatory bail in connection with the
F.I.R likely to be registered with Visavadar Police Station.

The applicant above named humbly submits as follows :

1. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with the F.I.R. likely to be
registered with Visavadar Police Station by the new Trustees of Mataji Kankeshwari
Temple Trust. The applicant states that one Mr. Prabhubhai Govindbhai Oza has
already filed one private complaint vide Criminal Inquiry Case No. ……/2015 in the
Court of J.M.F.C. at Visavadar on 19.12.2015 under Section 406, 465, 467, 474, 477-
A of I.P.C. The said complaint is registered as M. Case No. 340/2015 in Visavadar
Police Station on 21.12.2016.

Page |
79
2. The applicant was elected for President for about ten years and at present the
applicant is one of the Trustees in Mataji Kankeshwari Temple Trust which is
registered as per the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. Before filing of the said
complaint the said person Mr. Prabhubhai Govindbhai Oza had given application
before the Joint Charity Commissioner on 29.06.2015 which contained the same
entries of account and was having the same subject matter. The said application was
heard and finally decided with some mandatory direction by the Joint Charity
Commissioner on 05.12.2015.

3. The applicant states that the applicant had given resignation during the pendency of
this application before the Joint Charity Commissioner. However, vexatious private
criminal complaint was filed with ulterior motive to damage the reputation of the
applicant and to keep him away from trust administration.

4. The applicant is a reputed businessman in steel sector. The applicant is in the

business of steel supply for about thirty five years and at present working with Tata
Steel Ltd., Indore Steel Re-Rolling Mills and Trilok Ship Breaker and many other
reputed companies.

5. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant is never arrested in any
criminal case.

6. The applicant preferred anticipatory bail application vide Criminal Miscellaneous

Application No. /2015 before this Honourable Court and it was granted on 31.12.2015
in connection with the Criminal Inquiry Case No. /2005 which came to be registered
as M. Case No. /2015 in Visavadar Police Station. However, the applicant was not
arrested within ninety days from the date of order, the applicant preferred another
application for anticipatory bail on 28.03.2016 vide Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. ………/2016. At the time of hearing of the later application, it was
found that the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application …../2015, is not
limited and the applicant is protected till his arrest is made. Hence, it was withdrawn
with that endorsement.

Page |
80
7. The applicant humbly submits that the applicant is apprehending that a fresh
complaint will be filed by the new Trustees appointed in Mataji Kankeshwari Temple
Trust as the agenda was kept in the last meeting held at Kankai temple. It was also
discussed in the meeting that since in earlier complaint police has filed report under
Section 169 of the Cr. P.C. i.e. ‗A – Summary‘ and the applicant is not arrested, the
new Trustees want to teach him a lesson. Therefore, it is decided in the meeting to file
a fresh complaint against the applicant at Visavadar Police Station either by new
trustees or any other person connected with the temple. The applicant apprehends a
complaint to be filed with regard to the same allegations raised in earlier complaint.

8. The applicant states that the applicant preferred Criminal Misc. Application no.
….of 2019.However, the same was withdrawn having reserved the right to file fresh
application in case FIR is lodged. The applicant further submits that recently i.e. after
withdrawal of it, again meeting of trustees was called for fling of complaint against
present applicant. Hence, the applicant apprehends arrest in such vexatious compliant.

9. The applicant has not preferred any other application with regard to the same
subject matter of this application, either before the Honourable Gujarat High Court or
any other Court of law in India.

10. Therefore, the applicant humbly prays that:

a. Your Honour be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection
with the F.I.R. likely to be registered having the same subject-matter and offences of
earlier complaint, with Visavadar Police Station, District – Junagadh, on such terms
and conditions as are deemed fit in the interest of justice and yaadi be sent to : 1. the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Visavadar, and 2. Visavadar Police Station
b. Your Honour may be pleased to grant such other and further relief as deemed fit
and proper in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND
SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

Junagadh Advocate for the applicant

Date : /07/2007

Page |
81
 7. Criminal Complaint

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO. OF 2019

1. Govind Investment Pvt.Ltd.

-A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
Registered Office at:
Opp: Shahibaug Under-bridge,
Shahibaug, Ahmedabad 380 004.
By & Through Shri Shaan Zaveri
one of the authorized Directors
of the Company.

2. Tera Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,

- A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
Registered Office at:
Opp: Ranmukteshwar Mahadev,
Hansol, Ahmedabad.
By & Through
one of the authorized Directors
of the company. … Complainants

Versus

1. Gira Sarabhai
The Retreat,

Page |
82
Shahibag, Ahmedabad 380 004

2. Sarabhai Foundation
A Public Charitable Trust
Having its Office at:
The Retreat,
Shahibag, Ahmedabad 380 004

2/1. Gira Sarabhai

The Retreat,
Shahibag, Ahmedabad 380 004

2/2. Leena Mangaldas,

Mangal Baug, Ellisbridge,
Ahmedabad 380 006.

2/3. M. G. Doshit
24, High Court Judges Bungalows,
Premchand Nagar, Ahmedabad.

2/4. Dr. Aparna Basu

Head of Dept., of Modern History,
Delhi University, New Delhi.

2/5. Prof. B.C.Mohanty

C/o.Sarabhai Foundation
Having its Office at: The Retreat,
Shahibag, Ahmedabd 380 004

2/6. Shri B.N.Goswamy

C/o. Sarabhai Foundation
Having its Office at: The Retreat,
Shahibag, Ahmedabad 380 004. … Accused

Page |
83
Criminal complaint for the offence punishable U/s.630 of the Companies Act for
wrongfully obtaining possession of movable properties of Complainant no.1
Company and also for knowingly applying it to purposes other than those expressed
and directed in the Articles of Association of the Company.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR :

1. The complainant No.1 is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 having its Office at the address mentioned in the cause title of
the complaint. The complainant no.2 is also a Private Limited Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Office at the address mentioned in the
cause title of the complaint. Accused no.1 Ms.Gira Sarabhai is one of the Directors of
complainant no.1.

2. Complainant No.1 company owned various bronze sculptures, art objects, jewellery
and movable assets. These movables were transferred to complainant no.1 company
by Late Gautam Sarabhai (Reference about Gautambhai Sarabhai). Late Gautam
Sarabhai had also many Private Limited Companies and had created various Trusts
from time to time and various assets were transferred by family members to such
entities. It is the say of complainant no.1 that 23 bronze sculptures were acquired and
taken possession of by complainant no.1 and were registered as required by law under
the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act & Rules. Complainant no.1 company also owned
other art objects, jewellery etc. The list of movable assets owned by complainant no.1
is as under :

1. Sculpture: ‗Laxmi‘ (Bust), Marble

2. Sculpture: ‗Vishnu‘, Bronze
3. Sculpture: ‗Ganesh‘, Bronze
4. Sculpture: ‗Vishnu‘, Bronze
5. Sculpture: ‗Shiv-Parvati‘, Bronze
6. Sculpture: ‗Dancing Balkrishna‘, Bronze
7. Sculpture: ‗Nataraj‘, Bronze

Page |
84
8. Sculpture: Standing female figure, Bronze
9. Sculpture: Male figure –Brahmin, Bronze
10. Sculpture: Standing male figure, Bronze
11. Sculpture: ‗Shiv‘, Bronze
12. Sculpture: ‗Matangi‘ (?), Bronze
13. Sculpture: Devangana‘, Bronze
14. Sculpture: ‗Garud‘ in human form (?), Bronze
15. Sculpture: ‗Shiv-Parvati, Bronze
16. Sculpture: ‗Tripurantak‖ –form of Shiv,Bronze
17. Sculpture: Goddess (?), Bronze
18. Sculpture: ‗Parvati‘, Bronze
19. Sculpture: Devagna‘ in dancing pose, Bronze
20. Sculpture: ―Deep Laxmi‘ with parrots on both Shoulders, Brass
21. Sculpture: ‗Deep Laxmi‘ Brass
22. Sculpture: ‗Deep Laxmi‘ with parrot on right shoulder, Brass.
23. Painting : Kangra Painting, paper.

Other Art objects :

1. 4 Nos. Sari for Curtain

2. 2 Nos. Round decorative pieces
3. 12 Nos. Lamps –(divi)
4. 2 Nos. Pots – (degda)
5. 1 Nos. Box –(dabbo)
6. 1 Nos. Small brass box
7. 3 Nos. Flower vases
8. 3 Nos. Jugs
9. 2 Nos. Stools –(bajot)
10. 1 Nos. Ladle –(doyo)

Other Assets:

7.16% of undivided share in ornaments, silver and silver utensils.

Page |
85
3. Late Gautam Sarabhai passed away on 28/8/1995. Some time after the death of
Late Gautam Sarabhai, Accd.1 started creating lots of problems and hurdles so far as
smooth management of complainant no.1 company is concerned. Accused no.1
started creating lot of impediments and tried to take complete control of the company
in a very high handed and unlawful manner. Accused no.1, as a Director of
complainant no.1 company took over possession of all the assets of complainant no.1
company and wrongfully and illegally retained and withhold them in her custody.
Accused no.1 till this date continued to retain and wrongfully withholding the assets
of the complainant no.1 company, more particularly the movable assets, the list of
which is produced in this complaint.

4. So far as the complainant no.2 is concerned, it is the Transferee of certain art

objects from complainant no.1 The complainant no.2 company is owned by the
daughters of Late Gautam Sarabhai. Having realized the intention of accused no.1
and also having realized that the assets of the company are being applied to purposes
other than those expressed and directed in the Article and authorized by the
Companies Act, complainant no.2 made proposal for transfer of the art objects
originally acquired by Late Gautam Sarabhai and held by complainant no.1 to
complainant no.2 company and accordingly after following due process of law it was
resolved that the following movable assets be transferred to complainant no.2
company.

24. Sculpture: ‗Laxmi‘ (Bust), Marble

25. Sculpture: ‗Vishnu‘, Bronze
26. Sculpture: ‗Ganesh‘, Bronze
27. Sculpture: ‗Vishnu‘, Bronze
28. Sculpture: ‗Shiv-Parvati‘, Bronze
29. Sculpture: ‗Dancing Balkrishna‘, Bronze
30. Sculpture: ‗Nataraj‘, Bronze
31. Sculpture: Standing female figure, Bronze
32. Sculpture: Male figure –Brahmin, Bronze
33. Sculpture: Standing male figure, Bronze
34. Sculpture: ‗Shiv‘, Bronze
35. Sculpture: ‗Matangi‘ (?), Bronze

Page |
86
36. Sculpture: Devangana‘, Bronze
37. Sculpture: ‗Garud‘ in human form (?), Bronze
38. Sculpture: ‗Shiv-Parvati, Bronze
39. Sculpture: ‗Tripurantak‖ –form of Shiv,Bronze
40. Sculpture: Goddess (?), Bronze
41. Sculpture: ‗Parvati‘, Bronze
42. Sculpture: ‗Devagna‘ in dancing pose, Bronze
43. Sculpture: ―Deep Laxmi‘ with parrots on both Shoulders, Brass
44. Sculpture: ‗Deep Laxmi‘ Brass
45. Sculpture: ‗Deep Laxmi‘ with parrot on right shoulder, Brass.
46. Painting : Kangra Painting, paper.

Other Art objects :

11. 4 Nos. Sari for Curtain

12. 2 Nos. Round decorative pieces
13. 12 Nos. Lamps –(divi)
14. 2 Nos. Pots – (degda)
15. 1 Nos. Box –(dabbo)
16. 1 Nos. Small brass box
17. 3 Nos. Flower vases
18. 3 Nos. Jugs
19. 2 Nos. Stools –(bajot)
20. 1 Nos. Ladle –(doyo)

5. Accused no.1, as Director of complainant no.1 company, firstly took over the
possession and custody of all the movable assets illegally and unlawfully and
thereafter handed over possession of the movable assets / objects to accused no.2
Trust on loan basis. Accused no.2 is a Public Charitable Trust of which accused
nos.2/1 to 2/6 are the Trustees. The complainant no.1 company, which owned the art
objects, at no point of time has ever passed any resolution permitting the company or
any of its Directors to give on loan basis all or any of its art objects, bronze
sculptures, jewellery etc. with accused no.2 Trust or any other person/persons.
Accused no.1 was in custody of the assets as a Director and was legally bound to hold

Page |
87
the same in Trust for and on behalf of the company. Accused no.1, as a Director of
the Company would also be an Officer of the Company as defined in Sec. 2(30) of the
Companies Act. The Directors are in the position of Trustees of the Company.
However, accused no.1 deliberately with the intention of causing wrongful loss to the
company fraudulently and dishonestly handed over the possession of the movable
assets to accused no.2 Trust on loan basis. Accused nos.2/1 to 2/6 as Trustees of
Accused no.2 Trust are also in knowledge of the same and in spite of the knowledge
of the fact that the accused no.1 could not have transferred the movable assets of the
company in favour of accused no.2 Trust, each of the Trustees in collusion with each
other along with accused no.1 have taken over the custody and possession of the
movable assets as on today are wrongfully withholding and are in wrongful
possession of the assets of complainant no.1 company.

6. It is stated that there is an admission on the part of accused no.1 that the movable
assets have been handed over by her to the accused no.2 Trust on permanent loan
basis. Provisions of Sec. 292(1)(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, does not permit the
Director of a company to make loan, leave aside temporary or permanent, unless
authorized by the resolution passed at the meeting of the Board of Directors.
Sec.292(4) of the Companies Act also requires that the resolution so passed by the
Board of Directors, delegating the powers to make loans should be specific in nature
and person to whom such loans are to be made. Sec.292(1)(e) and (o) are the
directions of the law prescribing the mode in which the Director, who is the Trustee
of the money and properties of the company has to discharge with trust.

7. Accused no.1 in collusion with accused nos.2/1 to 2/6, wrongfully and illegally
obtained possession of the movable assets of the company and accused no.1 has
thereafter knowingly transferred the movable assets of the company to accused no.2
Trust which can be said to be for the purpose of other than the one expressed and
directed in the Articles. Accused no.1 and accused nos.2 \/1 to 2/6 jointly have
committed an offence punishable U/s.630 of the Companies Act, 1956.

8. To protect the interest of the company, the company has also instituted Civil Suit in
the Court of City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad to recover all the assets of complainant-1
company including the assets transferred to complainant no.2 vide Board Resolution

Page |
88
dated 27/6/1996 from the accused persons pursuant to the resolution passed by the
Board on its meeting held on 24/4/2009 to the effect that the company should take
appropriate proceedings for recovery of the assets.

9. It is prayed that the Hon‘ble Court may kindly take cognizance upon the complaint
and order issuance of process/summons to each of the accused persons for the offence
punishable U/s.630 of the Companies Act and punish each of the accused persons
appropriately in accordance with law for the offence committed.

Verified by me on this 14TH day of October, 2019, at Ahmedabad.

Place: AHMEDABAD. …………………………

Date:14/10/2019 COMPLAINANT

Advocate for Complainant

Page |
89
 Unit: 3 Conveyance Deeds

1. DEED OF ADOPTION

THIS DEED OF ADOPTION is made on this 26 day of May 2018 at

Ahmedabad,

BETWEEN

Shri Harshit lalbhai Patel

Aged about 31 years,
Occupation – Service,
Hindu by Religion,
Having address at
36, Krishna Society,
Near Lal darwaja
Ahmedabad ,Gujarat. … Party of the First Part

Smt. Krishna Harshitbhai Patel

Aged about 31 years,
Occupation – Private Practitioner
Hindu by Religion,
Having address at
36, Krishna Society,
Near Lal darwaja
Ahmedabad ,Gujarat. … Party of the Second

AND

Page |
90
Shri Deep Nareshbhai Shah
Aged about 33 years,
Occupation – Business,
Hindu by Religion,
Having address at
1, Saraswati Chandra Society,
Maninagar,Ahmedabad . … Party of the Third Part

Smt. Manshi Deep Shah

Aged about 33 years,
Occupation – Service,
Hindu by Religion,
Having address at
1, Saraswati Chandra Society,
Maninagar,Ahmedabad … Party of the Fourth Part
WHEREAS

1. The Party of First Part and the Party of the Second Part are husband and wife.
The Party of the Third Part and the Party of the Fourth Part are also husband
and wife.

2. The Party of the First Part and the Party of the Fourth Part are real brother and
sister and are children of the same parents. The Party of the Fourth Part is the
sister-in-law of the Party of the Second Part by virtue of being the sister of the
Party of the First Part.

3. The Parties of the Third and Fourth Part do not have any issue till date.

4. The Parties above – named being closely related as more particularly

described herein above, the Parties of the Third and Fourth Part requested the
Party of the First and Second Part to give their younger son viz. TIRTH, born
on 06.05.2017, upon whose body there is a pigmented patch near left knee

Page |
91
 joint as mark of identification, in adoption to the Party of the Third Part and
the Party of the First Part with the consent of the Party of the Second Part has
agreed to do so.

5. The Parties of the First and Second Part have one son named RAKESH
HARSHIT PATEL, other than the son given in adoption. The Parties of the
First and Second Part are the natural parents and guardians of minor TIRTH
and are competent to give him in adoption.

6. Accordingly, a formal adoption ceremony was performed on the 26th day of

May 2018, when the Parties of the First and Second Part actually delivered to
the Parties of the Third and Fourth Part the said Master TIRTH with the
intention to give him in adoption to the parties of the Third and Fourth Part in
the presence of several persons two of whom have attested this Deed.

NOW THIS DEED RECORDS AS UNDER:

1. The Party of the Third Part with the consent of the Party of the Fourth Part has
taken in adoption and the Party of the First Part with the consent of the Party
of the Second Part has given in adoption the said minor Master Tirth as the
adoptive son of the Parties of the Third and Fourth Part, on the 26th day of
May 2018.

2. It is declared that the said adoption has been made out of the free will of the
parties hereto and with a clear intention that the said Master Tirth shall be
treated as the adoptive son of the Parties of the Third and Fourth Part with all
legal consequences thereof and the said Master Tirth shall cease to be the son
of the Parties of the First and Second Part with all legal consequences thereof.

3. The said Master Tirth shall henceforth be known as TIRTH DEEP SHAH, son
of Deep Nareshbhai Shah and Manshi Deep Shah.

Page |
92
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have placed their respective hands on
this the 26 day of May 2018.

HARSHIT LALBHAI PATEL

(Party of the First Part)

KRISHNA HARSHITBHAI PATEL

(Party of the Second Part)

DEEP NARESHBHAI SHAH

(Party of the Third Part)

MANSHI DEEP SHAH

(Party of the Fourth Part)

IN THE PRESENCE OF

Name :
Address:

Name :
Address :

Page |
93
 2. AGREEMENT OF SALE

Agreement of Sale of Immovable Property bearing Flat No.A/10,Second Floor of

Malhar Flats, admeasuring about 88.Sq.Yds. i.e.73.58 Sq.Mtrs. , lying and situated in
Survey No.540/2, Final Plot No.25 of T. P. Scheme No.5 of Mouje Vejalpur, Taluka
City, within the Registration Sub-District and District Ahmedabad-4(Paldi).
......................................................................................

The Party of the 1.Shilpa Rajeshbhai Patel

First Part:-2.Rajeshbhai B Patel

Both adult, Occupation House-hold/Service-Business, Hindu by Religion, Both

Residing at B.16, Narayn Apartment, B/h. Mother Milk Palace, Gota, Ahmedabad.
.....hereinafter referred to as the "Party of the First Part", which expression shall mean
and include the said Shilpa Rajeshbhai Patel and Chetan V. Dave and his/her/their
heirs, executors, transferees, assignees administrators, attorneis etc.

The Party of the Gautem B Patel

Second Part:-aged about 43 years, Occu-pation Service, Residing at B./204, Rajula
Apartment, Opp.T.V.9, Vijay Park, Ahmedabad.
....hereinafter referred to as the "Party of the Second Part", which expression shall
mean and include the said Gautem B Pateland his heirs, executors, transferees,
assignees administrators, attorneis etc.

That both the parties have executed this Agreement to Sale as under:-

1. The land situated in Survey No.540/2 which has been included in Final Plot No.25
of T. P. Scheme No.5 of Mouje Vejalpur, Taluka City, within the Registration Sub-
District and District Ahmedabad-4(Paldi). That the Land Owner Darshanbhai

Page |
94
Vinodbhai Patel and Developers Meghansh Realters has constructed Flats in the
scheme known as "Malhar Flats".

The Party of the First Part are the members of the said Malhar Flats and Malhar Flats
has allotted Flat No. A/10 on the Second Floor in the said Malhar Flats. The
construction of the said flat is 73.58 Sq.Mtrs. and 29.61Sq. Mtrs. undivided share in
the land of Malhar Flats The full description of the said flat is mentioned in the
Schedule hereunder written. The Party of the First Part have been allotted the said Flat
No.A/10 by the Owner of the said Land and Developers Meghansh Realters and the
Sale-deed was registered before the Sub-Registrar Ahmedabad-4(Paldi) under
Sr.No.13.10.2009 Since then the Party of the First Part are the allottee members and
owners of the said Flat.

2. The Party of the First Part doth hereby agree to assign and the Party of the Second
Part doth agree to acquire the right, title, and interest of the Party of the First Part in
this Agreement in respect of the said Flat No.A/10 for the total sum of Rs.37,50,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand only ) subject to the terms and conditions
contained in this Agreement and subjection to the terms and conditions of the above
said Sale-deed.

3. That the Party of the Second Part has paid to the Party of the First Part the
following amount i.e. 7,50,000/- against the consideration.

Amount
(Rs.) Cheque No. & Date Name of the Bank
1,87,500/- 188977
Dt.25.2.17 Axis Bank, Vastrapur Branch, Ahmedabad.
1,87,500/- 192542
Dt.10.3.17 Axis Bank, Vastrapur Branch, Ahmedabad.
1,87,500/- 192541
Dt.15.3.17 Axis Bank, Vastrapur Branch, Ahmedabad.
1,87,500/- 192543
Dt.15.4.17 Axis Bank, Vastrapur Branch, Ahmedabad.

Page |
95
7,50,000/-Rs. Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only.

The said amount is received by the Party of the First Part. Hence this Agreement to
Sell is executed. The said amount shall be adjusted at the time of final Sale-deed in
sale consideration.

4. The Party of the First Part has to give the Title-clearance Certificate within Three
months from today either by the Approved Government Solicitor or an Advocate, the
expenses for this, shall be borne by the Party of the Second Part.

5. The time period of this Agreement is Four months from today.

6. The Party of the First Part has to execute the Sale-deed in favour of the Party of the
Second Part or as per the names given by the Party of the Second Part.

7. The Party of the First Part has to obtain No-due Certificate from the Society and
also to get the permission to sell this property to the Party of the Second Part from
Society before the Sale-deed and to give these Certificate to the Party of the Second
Part.

8. That the Party of the First Part hereby declare that they have not mortgaged on or
before the date of this Agreement. They have not mortgaged, transferred, assigned in
any other way encumbered or alienated their rights, title and interest of the said Flat
and up to the Sale-deed, the Party of the First Part shall not make any charge on the
said Property.

9. The Party of the First Part have assured and given undertaking that they have not
transferred, assigned or gave possession of the said flat by Leave and License or by
executing any other writing or documents, further they give undertaking that they
have not taken any amount from any Bank of Institution and there is no litigation
pending in any Court or there is no stay of attachment against the said property.
10. It is further agreed by the parties that if the Party of the First Part are ready and
willing to execute the final Sale-deed as per this Agreement, even though the Party of
the Second Part does not give the full consideration, in that circumstances, the Party

Page |
96
of the First Part will be entitled to cancel this Agreement and forfeit the Bana amount
of Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty thousand only).At the same time, within
the time limit of this Agreement, if the Party of the First Part do not hand over No-due
Certificate from the Society, then the Party of the Second Part is entitled to file the
suit as per the provisions of Specific Relief Act and shall be entitled to get the decree
of Specific Performance of this Agreement, as well as, the compensation from the
Party of the First Part. It is further agreed by the Party of the First Part that in such
circumstances, they will be responsible to pay all the expenses and consequences of
the said suit.

11. The expenses of the Sale-deed like stamp-duty, registration charges, typing, etc.
will be borne by the Party of the Second Part and the Transfer-fees payable to the
Society will be borne by the Party of the Second Part.

In witness whereof, the parties hereto have hereunder set and subscribed their
respective hands and seals on the day ............. of March, 2017.

SCHEDULE

All that piece and parcel of land of Immovable Property bearing Flat No.A/10,Second
Floor of Malhar Flat, admeasuring about 88.Sq.Yds. i.e. 73.58 Sq.Mtrs., lying and
situated in Survey No.540/2, Final Plot No.25 of T. P. Scheme No.5 of Mouje
Vejalpur, Taluka City, within the Registration Sub-District and District Ahmedabad-
4(Paldi) and bounded as under:-

East:- 12 Mtrs. T.P.Road.

West:- Common Passage and Common Staircase.
North:-Flat No.A/11
South:-Sub Station of Auda.

Party of the First Part. Witness

Page |
97
Shilpa Rajeshbhai Patel

2
Rajeshbhai B Patel

Party of the Second Part. Witness

Gautem B Patel

3. GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, We,

(1) Hardik Rakesh Doshi, aged about 32 years, Occupation Service, Hindu by
Religion and
(2) Pratik Rakesh Doshi, aged about 34 years, Occupation Service, Hindu by
Religion,
Both Residing at B-7, Someshwara Row House-2, Jodhpur Cross Road, Satellite,
Ahmedabad- 380051

SEND GREETINGS:-

We both intent to purchase the following properties:

Property to be purchased in the name of Hardik Rakesh Doshi:

Page |
98
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:-

All that piece aned parcel of immovable property bearing Room No.166, 4th Floor,
Building No.15/F, Halai Lohana Niwas, now under HBS Sea View Pvt.Ltd., Shankar
Bali Lane, Chira Bazar, Mumbai.400,002.

Property to be purchased in the name of Pratik Rakesh Doshi:-

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:-

All that piece aned parcel of immovable property bearing property No.23-B, 2nd
Floor, Building No.15/C, Lohana Niwas, now under HBS Sea View Pvt.Ltd., Shankar
Bali Lane, Chira Bazar, Mumbai.400,002.

Whereas We are personally unable to attend affairs and look after, manage, and
administer our immovable property/ies which are to be purchased more particularly
described herein above written and whereas We desirous of appointing some fit and
proper person to represent us and manage and administer or property generally and
particularly to do all other acts and deeds for the abovesaid property.

NOW, We hereby constitute, nominate and appoint our Father Doshi Rakesh
Natwarlal, aged about 60 years, Occupation:Retired. Hindu by Religion and (2)
Meetaben Rakeshbhai Doshi, aged about 56 years, Occupation Housewife, Both
Residing at B-7, Someshwara Row House-2, Jodhpur Cross Road, Satellite,
Ahmedabad- 380051 to be our true and lawful attorney in our names and on our
behalf to do all or any of the following acts, and deeds and things and we hereby
make it clear and specific that any of the things, deeds or acts that may be done or
performed by the said Attorney, shall be binding to us, as if, the same are done by us
personally.

Page |
99
1. To purchase the abovesaid property/ies in our individual name and to execute
Agreement to Sell, Sale-deed;

2. To execute any Leave-Licence Agreement and to give on license to any person or

party and to receive the Licence fee and to give receipt to the person or party and to
cancel the Leave Licence Agreement;

3. To purchase the abovesaid property/ies and appear for us and to represent us in

respect of the said property, before any of the Registrar of Assurances or Sub-
Registrar or other Officer competent to register according to law for the time being in
force and applicable thereto and for procuring and effecting the registration in due
form of law all or any sale-deeds, agreement of sale or Release-deed, or any type of
documents, to purchase/sell/transfer the said property for the said property more
particularly described hereinabove and writings executed either by us or by our said
Attorney pursuant to this power and for that purpose for us and in our individual name
and otherwise on our behalf to do and execute all acts, matters and things that may be
considered necessary by the said attorney and to get the consideration in my name and
on behalf of us.

4. To compromise and settle actions, suits, and other proceedings as the said Attorney
may deem expedient and also to appoint Advocate, Pleader, etc. pertaining to the said
property.

5. To give/file reply of any kind of notice issued by City Survey Supdt. or Collector,
State, Semi Govt. in respect of my Immovable Property as mentioned hereinabove
and to appear and act in all courts civil, revenue, criminal and in any other office of
Government, District Board Municipal Corporation, Electricity Board or Company or
any other authority.

6. We authorise our Power of Attorney to pay the consideration amount for the Sale-
deed and to pay Registration Fee, Advocate fee, Typing charge etc. as per
requirement in executing the Sale-deed and to get the receipt and to execute any
affidavit, declaration, and to get N.O.C. and No-due Certificate from the vendor on
our behalf.

Page |
100
7. We declare that our said Attorney shall be entitled to execute and exercise all or
any of the aforesaid powers and authorities pertaining to the said property/ies.

8. That I agree and hereby declare that whatever is done by our said Attorney by
virtue of this Power of Attorney shall be at all time absolutely and irrevocable binding
to us, as if, every thing is done personally by us.
Dated this…day of July, 2019;

Donner PHOTO

1
Hardik Rakesh Doshi

2
Pratik Rakesh Doshi

We accept
Donee:

1
Rakesh Natwarlal Doshi

2
Meeraben Rakeshbhai Doshi

Page |
101
 4. GIFT DEED

THIS DEED OF GIFT is made on 23 June, 2019 at Ahmedabad.

BETWEEN

Mr. Saryu Rakeshbhai Jain, aged about adult, residing at 36,Sarswati Chandra
Society,Odhav, Ahmedabad ( hereinafter called "Donor-Party of the First Part).

AND

Mr. Palak Rakeshbhai Jain, aged about adult, residing at 36,Sarswati Chandra
Society,Odhav, Ahmedabad (hereinafter called the "Donee-Party of the Second Part).

1. That out of natural love and affection made an unconditional Gift of

Rs.10,00,000/00 (Rupees Ten Lacs only) by Cheque No.000081 dated 15/6/2016 of
Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad to my son Palak Rakeshbhai Jain residing at 36,Sarswati
Chandra Society,Odhav, Ahmedabad .

2. That the aforesaid Gift of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) is made me
wholly out of my acquired funds and wholly earned and owned by me and no other
person has or over had my rights title or interest and claims whatsoever in the same
and any part thereof and I have since such gift as aforesaid totally divested myself of
may said amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lacs only) and or my legal
representatives and/or heirs shall have no right, title, interest and claims or demands
whatsoever in the or upon the gift or any part thereof. I am an Income Tax Assesse
having PAN NO. Abdxx123.assessed by Income Tax Circle Ahmedabad.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have set and subscribe their respective hands to
this writing on the day and year first hereinabove written.

Page |
102
SIGNED, SEALED & In the presence of:-
DELIVERED BY the
Within named "Party
Hereto of the First Part
i.e. the Donor.

Saryu Rakeshbhai Jain

SIGNED, SEALED &
DELIVERED BY the
within named "Party
Hereto of the Second Part
i.e. the Donee.

Rakeshbhai Jain

5. SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, I Maheshbhai Ishanbhai

Pandya, adult, Hindu by Religion, Occupation Service, Residing at 202, Madhuven
Apartment, 176, Vidhyanagar, Indore (M.P.)

SEND GREETINGS:-

Whereas I have been personally unable to attend and present in any case filed against
me for my Immovable Property/ies in any Village, City, State of India and the
Immovable Property more particularly described herein under, before the Hon. City
Civil Court, Small Causes Court, Board of Nominees Court, Gujarat state Co.op.

Page |
103
Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Gujarat High Court or Hon. Supreme Court of
India or any of the Court in India and therefore I am desirous of appointing some fit
and proper person to represent me before any of the concerned Courts/Tribunal etc.
and generally and particularly to do all other acts and deeds.

Description of Property:-

Flat No.2, First Floor ( Ground Floor as per Plan) of Jaldhara Apartment Owners
Association (Otherwise known as "Jaldhara Apartment", admeasuring about 110
Sq.Yds. i.e. 91.47 Sq.Mtrs.(Super Built up area) lying and situated at Revenue Survey
No.7, T.P.S.No.6, Final Plot No.2, Sub Plot No.2/A of Mouje Paldi, Taluka
Ahmedabad(West), District Ahmedabad, Sub-District Ahmedabad.4(Paldi)
(Municipal Tenament No.0504-01-2091-0001-M. of Ward No.0504-P.T.College, and
Torrent Power Service No. 3344502);

NOW, I hereby constitute, nominate and appoint Ashoke Deepkbhai Pandya adult,
Hindu by Religion, Occupation Retired, residing at 1, Jaldhara Apartment,
Vishvakunj Cross Road, Narayannagar Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad.380007 to be my
true and lawful attorney in my name and on my behalf to do all or any of the
following acts, and deeds and things and I hereby make it clear and specific that any
of the things, deeds or acts that may be done or performed by the said Attorney, shall
be binding to me, as if, the same are done by me personally.

1. To commence, initiate, continue and prosecute and proceed with any existing or
fresh any action, suits, or any of the Case or other proceedings filed against me in
respect of any of the matters and to appear, defend any action, suits or other
proceedings pending and commenced or to be commenced against me or whereunto I
shall be a party and also if my said Attorney shall think fit to compromise, compound,
settle, adjust and admit, submit to judgment discontinue in respect of the any case
filed against me in any Court of Law in India.

2. To engage an Advocate, to sign Vakalatnama, to file reply, written statement,

application before any competent Court.

Page |
104
3. To appear in Court, Civil Court, Criminal Court, High Court, Supreme Court and
Government Department, and to file reply and for a receiving order or orders against
any person or persons or firm, etc.

4. That I agree and hereby declare that whatever is done by our said Attorney by
virtue of this Power of Attorney shall be at all-time absolutely and irrevocable binding
to me, as if, everything is done personally by me.

5. I declare that my said Attorney shall be entitled to execute and exercise all or any
of the aforesaid powers and authorities.
Dated this 24 day of May,2019;

Donor

Maheshbhai Ishanbhai Pandy

Ashoke Deepkbhai Pandya

Page |
105
6. DEED OF TRUST

DEED OF TRUST OF ESTATE OF SHIBANI AND SONU THAKOR

PRIVATE TRUST

This Deed of Trust made on this 15 day of June 2017 at Ahmedabad.

The immovable property lying and situated at District Ahmedabad Registration Sub-
District Ahmedabad – 4 (Paldi) Taluka Sabarmati (Old Taluka City) Mouje Gam
Paldi sim bearing Revenue Khata No.410, Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Final Plot
No. 521 ( Old Survey No. 1119/1 paiki sub-plot), being Bunglow No. 12 Motinagar,
was inherited by Mr. Sonu Maheshbhai Thakor from his mother Mrs. Jayvidyaben
Thakor through Will made by Mrs. Jayvidyaben Thakor. Mr. Sonu Maheshbhai
Thakor passed away on 22.10.2006. Pursuant thereto, in accordance with the Will
made by Mr. Sonu Thakor, Mrs. Shibani Sonu Thakor i.e. wife of Mr. Sonu Thakor,
inherited the above mentioned immovable property. Mrs. Shibani Sonu Thakor passed
away on 09.07.2015. During her lifetime, Mrs. Shibani Sonu Thakor had made and
executed a Will dated 02.04.2013, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar,
Ahmedabad – 4 (Paldi) under Serial No. 2630/2013, and according to her above
mentioned Will, the following persons were named as the Executors of her Will :

(1) Mr. Mihir Anilbhai Lakhia

Residing at 27, Pritamnagar,
Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

(2) Mr. Shirish Vaikunthbhai Diwanji

Residing at D/404, Neelambar
Vasna Bhaili Road, Vadodara 391410.

Page |
106
Under the authority vested in them by the Will made by Late Smt. Shibani Sonu
Thakor, the above mentioned Executors have sold the above mentioned immovable
property on 01/02/2016 by way of Registered Sale Deed, which is registered before
the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad – 4 (Paldi) under Serial No. 349/2016. From the sale
proceeds received from the sale of the above mentioned immovable property, the
specific beneficiaries under the said Will have been paid the amounts as specified
therein. Pursuant thereto, the applicable Capital Gains Tax has been paid to the
Income Tax Department and the amount remaining thereafter has been placed in
Capital Gain Tax Bonds and Fixed Deposits.

Late Smt. Shibani Sonu Thakor had desired and directed through her Will that the
amount remaining after making all the above mentioned payments be utilized for
educational, health and medical purposes, donations to old age homes, etc.

The Executors above named, therefore, under the authority vested in them by the Will
made by Smt. Shibani Sonu Thakor and in order to utilize the available funds for
noble causes are desirous of setting up the Trust as under. Pursuant to making
payments to beneficiaries under the Will and payment of applicable Capital Gains
Tax and other taxes, an amount of Rs.3 crores, Rupees three crores only, is held by
The Estate of Shibani and Sonu Thakor. The said amount is hereby placed in the
name of the Trust for the following purposes and beneficiaries subject to the terms
and conditions more particularly stipulated hereunder.

NOW THIS DEED WITNESSES AS UNDER :

(1) Name :

The Trust shall be known as ―Estate of Shibani and Sonu Thakor Private Trust‖.

(2) Trustees:

There shall be two Trustees. The following shall be the Trustees:

Page |
107
 1. Mr. Mihir Anilbhai Lakhia
Residing at 27, Pritamnagar,
Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

2. Mr. Shirish Vaikunthbhai Diwanji

Residing at D/404, Neelambar
Vasna Bhayli Road, Vadodara 391 410.

(3) Appointment of Future Trustees:

During the subsistence period of the Trust, in case of demise of any one of the
Trustees above named, one Trustee shall be appointed in his place. In case of the
demise of Mr. Mihir Anil Lakhia, his son Mr. Pranshav Mihir Lakhia shall be
appointed as Trustee in his place. In case Mr. Pranshav Mihir Lakhia has not attained
the age of 22 years, then Mrs. Kanan Mihir Lakhia, wife of Mr. Mihir Anil Lakhia,
shall be appointed as Trustee till such time. In case of the demise of Mr. Shirish
Vaikunthbhai Diwanji, his son Mr. Hardik Shirishbhai Diwanji, who is a Chartered
Accountant, shall be appointed as Trustee in his place.

(4) Tenure :

The tenure of the Trust shall be for a period of 15 years. Upon the completion of a
period of 15 years, the Trustees shall take necessary decision regarding the Trust.

(5) Investment / Deposit :

The trust fund amounting to Rs.3 crores, Rupees Three Crores only shall be placed in
Fixed Deposit with Banks, Financial Corporations and Government Bonds and
Securities.

(6) Fund Utilization :

The amounts received as interest on Fixed Deposits / Bonds shall be utilized to fulfill
the purposes of the Trust.

Page |
108
(7) Bank Account :

The bank account of the Trust is presently held with the Nutan Nagrik Sahakari Bank
Ltd., Kalupur, Branch. If required, a bank account may be opened with any other bank
by the Trustees.

(8) Purposes :

The funds shall be utilized for educational purposes, medical aid for the beneficiaries,
donations to old age homes, etc. as desired by Mrs. Shibani Sonu Thakor.

(9) Beneficiaries :

In furtherance to the purposes of the Trust, in case any of the beneficiaries named
hereunder is hospitalized for any reason for a period exceeding 24 hours, then an
amount of Rs.5,000/- to a maximum of Rs.1,50,000/- per person shall be given as
medical aid from the income earned on the Trust Fund Deposits.

Names of Beneficiaries:

1. Vidulaben Rameshbhai Thakor

2. Uday Rameshbhai Thakor
3. Ramilaben Thakor , wife of Uday Thakor
4. Kshitij Rameshbhai Thakor
5. Chetanaben, wife of Kshitij Thakor
6. Ruchi Abhilash Clerk
7. Abhilash Clerk
8. Digant Rameshbhai Desai (unmarried)
9. Daksha Desai (unmarried)
10. Kaku Desai (unmarried)
11. Nanda Desai
12. Swetal Nandan Desai, wife of Nandan Desai
13. Smitaben Shirishbhai Diwanji
14. Shirishbhai Vaikunthbhai Diwanji

Page |
109
 15. Noopur
16. Hemal
17. Hardik Shirishbhai Diwanji
18. Santa, wife of Hardik Diwanji
19. Mihir Anilbhai Lakhia
20. Kanan Lakhia, wife of Mihir Lakhia
21. Jayantilal Tulsidas Soni
22. Indiraben Jayantilal Soni
23. Arvindkumar Chhabildas Bhalani
24. Nitaben Arvindkumar Bhalani

7. DEED OF LEASE

This Deed of Lease is executed on this 24, day of Aug, 2019at Ahmedabad.

BETWEEN

JAY GAUTEMBHAI SHAH, aged about 30 years, Occupation – Business, Residing

at Survey No. 54/1, Beside Siddharth Kids Campus, Opp. Aryavrat 4 Lane, Opp.
YMCA Club, herein after referred to as the ―LESSOR‖, which expression shall,
unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof, mean and include his heirs,
successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assignees, OF THE
ONE PART;

AND

SHREE ONETEN KATHIYAWADI RESTAURANT, through its Authorised

Partner, Kesharsinh L. Rajput, aged about 34 years, Occupation – Business, Residing

Page |
110
at 41, Sentosa Green, Gandhinagar, hereinafter referred to as the ―LESSEE‖, which
expression shall, unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof, mean and
include its successors-in-interest, executors, administrators, legal representatives and
assignees, of the OTHER PART.

WHEREAS:-

A. The LESSOR is the Banakhat Holder and in possession of premises located at

Shop No. 1 of ―Dev Aurum‖, which is known as Dev Aurum Commercial, lying and
situated on the N.A. Land of Survey No. 1274, T.P.S. No.3 (Vejalpur), Final Plot No.
198 of Mouje Vejalpur, Taluka Vejalpur, in the Registration District Ahmedabad,
Sub-District Ahmedabad-10 (Vejalpur), including the right of ingress and egress and
other residual rights, admeasuring about 73.58 Sq.Mtrs. of built up area in the said
property, hereinafter referred as ―the said Premises‖ more particularly described and
explained in the ‗Schedule – A‘ here under.

B. The Lessor assures that the said demised premises can be used for commercial
purpose for which all sanctions / approvals for the said building has been obtained by
the LESSOR from competent authorities and upon the said Lessor‘s representation,
the Lessee has agreed to take under lease the said premises.

C. The LESSEE is engaged in the business of food and restaurant outlet under the
Brand name ―Shree Oneten Kathiyawadi Restaurant‖ and is desirous of setting up
restaurant in the said premises.

D. The LESSOR has consented that the said property can be used for food and
restaurant outlet. Any specific sanction / approval for the restaurant, from the
competent authorities, has to be obtained by the LESSEE at its own cost.

E. The LESSOR has offered the lease of the said premises inclusive of 6 (six)
dedicated Car Parking in the premises being leased out restaurant and the Lessee has
accepted the said offer.

Page |
111
F. The said Premises will be fitted with appropriate equipment for running of the
restaurant, without compromising on the structural integrity of the building OR its
elevation.

G. The LESSOR has assured that the said premises and the land on which the
Demised Premises is situated are not the subject matter of any pending litigation,
lien, charge, acquisition proceedings or any other proceedings / restrictions or
whatsoever, by reason whereof. Further, there is no bar on the LESSOR which
prohibits him to lease the same to the LESSEE for the aforesaid purposes. Further the
LESSOR has in principle agreed to lease the said premises to the LESSEE and the
LESSEE has agreed to take on lease the said property.

H. The parties hereto are desirous of recording the terms and conditions agreed upon
by and between them as under :-

NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS:-

1. SCOPE

The LESSOR hereby agrees to permit the LESSEE to put up and operate a restaurant
on the said premises. The said premises shall be used for the purpose as permissible
under law and it shall be used for such manner as not to create damage to the
structure.

The recitals above form an integral part of this Deed, and are not being repeated in the
operative part only for the sake of brevity and should be deemed to be incorporated in
the operative part also as if the same were reproduced verbatim.

2. LEASE AREA

The LESSOR shall lease the said premises i.e. Shop No.1, Dev Aurum Showroom
and offices, Anannagar cross Road, opposite madhur Hall, 100ft, Road, Prahladnagar,

Page |
112
Ahmedabad, lying and situated on the N.A. Land of Survey No. 1274, T.P.S. No.3
(Vejalpur), Final Plot No.198 of Mouje Vejalpur, Taluka Vejalpur, in the Registration
District Ahmedabad, Sub-District Ahmedabad-10 (Vejalpur), admeasuring about
73.58 Sq.Mtrs. of built up area of the said property with the right to the LESSEE,
their servants, employees, customers and persons authorized by them to use the
entrance and doorways in the said building leading to and from the said Premises for
the purpose of ingress thereto and egress therefrom.

3. ADDITIONS / MODIFICATIONS:

The LESSOR shall permit the LESSEE to carry out such modifications or alterations,
within the four walls of the said premises, without affecting structural integrity of the
building or elevation in any manner, with prior intimation to the LESSOR in writing,
and the costs of which will be borne by the LESSEE

4. LEASE PERIOD

The lease of the said Premises shall be for a period of 9 (Nine) years from the ''Date
of commencement of Lease'' as detailed in this agreement, hereinafter referred to as
the LEASE PERIOD. The lock-in period shall be in operation for a period of 3
(three) years from the date of commencement of lease.

5. POSSESSION & COMMENCEMENT OF LEASE

The LESSOR shall deliver the physical possession of the said Premises to the
LESSEE on or before 31st December, 2017. The date of commencement of lease
shall be January 01, 2018 and the lease rent shall be payable from the said date. The
LESSOR shall provide permanent power connection of 35 KVA load 3 phase for the
Lessee‘s usage.

Page |
113
6. LEASE CONSIDERATION (RENT)

The Lessee in consideration of use and occupation of the said premises, during the
lease term, shall pay to the Lessor the monthly rent in the following manner. The
Lessor shall issue proper receipts to the Lessee :

a) Rs. 5,15,000 /- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand only) shall be payable as
monthly lease rent by the lessee to the lessor from January 01, 2018.

b) The lease rent for the first month i.e. Rs.5,15,000/- shall be payable in advance by
the Lessee to the Lessor.

c) The monthly lease rent shall be payable between the 1st and the 5th day of each
calendar month.

d) The Monthly Rent is exclusive of service tax and central government taxes, if any
payable on rent. Service tax on rent or any such other tax as may be levied by the
statutory authorities in respect of the said premises shall be borne by the Lessee.

e) All other taxes in respect of the said premises including property tax, shall be
borne by the LESSEE. The Municipal tax with respect to the said premises up to
31.03.2018 which amounts to approximately Rs.6,89,797/- shall be payable by the
Lessee.

f) All utility usage charges such as electricity both specific and common, water both
specific and common etc., shall be payable at actual by the LESSEE on proportionate
basis. It is mutually agreed between the parties to increase the lease rent by 15% at
the end of every three years on the last rent paid. If the Lessee fails or neglects to pay
the monthly lease rent as specified herein for two consecutive months, the LESSOR is
entitled to terminate the Lease after furnishing written notice of 30 days to the
LESSEE of his intention to terminate the Lease.

Page |
114
7. INTEREST FREE REFUNDABLE SECURITY DEPOSIT

The LESSEE shall pay to the Lessor a total sum of Rs.15,45,000, Rupees fifteen
lakhs forty five thousand only, equivalent to 3 (three) month‘s rent as interest free
refundable Security Deposit.

In the event of termination or earlier determination of these presents, the Interest Free
Security Deposit, a sum of Rs.15,45,000 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Forty Five Thousand
Only) shall be refunded by the LESSOR or any subsequent purchaser of the property,
subject to allowable adjustments that may be necessitated, in case of non-payment of
any of the dues by LESSEE.

8. COVENANTS OF THE LESSEE

The LESSEE covenants with the LESSOR that the LESSEE shall

a) Pay all the electricity consumption charges that are payable in connection with the
business to the authorities concerned from date of commencement of Lease.

b) The Lessee has agreed and confirm to pay Rs.5/- per square feet per month the
common area maintenance charges to Dev Aurum Commercial Co Operative Service
Society Ltd.

c) Use the said premises for the restaurant or for such other reasons to suit the purpose
of business of the Lessee. However, the premises shall be used for the purpose
permissible under law and it shall be used for such manner as not to create damage to
the structure and inconvenience to other occupants.

d) On the expiry or sooner termination of the lease, the Lessee shall peacefully
surrender possession or caused to be surrendered the peaceful and vacant possession
of the said premises in the manner as explained in the termination clause, in a good
and proper condition.

e) Not carry on any offensive trade or prohibited business in the said premises.

Page |
115
f) Not use the said premise for any purposes other than that for which it was leased
out without the written permission of LESSOR.

g) Not commit any act of waste, which are likely to materially impair the value and
utility of the said premises. The LESSEE shall not do or cause to be done in or upon
the said premise or other parts of the said building anything whatsoever which may be
a nuisance or annoyance in any way or interfere with the quiet and comfort of the
LESSOR or any other user / occupants of the said premises.

h) The LESSEE shall permit the LESSOR and his authorized persons to have access
to the said premises for the purpose of inspection and satisfying themselves regarding
adherence of this Agreement of Lease by LESSEE.

9. COVENANTS OF THE LESSOR

The LESSOR covenants with the LESSEE that:

(a) The LESSEE paying the rent hereby reserved and performing and observing the
covenants herein to be performed and observed by the LESSEE shall and may hold
and enjoy the said premises during the said terms(s) without any interruption by the
LESSOR or any other person whatsoever.

(b) The LESSEE shall have unlimited access to the said premises on all the 7 days of
a week, for the conduct of its business.

(c) It is mutually agreed between the parties hereto that the LESSEE shall be at liberty
to put up the interiors of the premises according to their requirement. During the said
term, the LESSEE shall be entitled to make or put up any partition of temporary
nature, install equipment, trade fittings or fixtures, within the said premises and to
remove the same. However, the LESSEE shall make good the damage, if any, caused
to the said premises by such removal.

Page |
116
(d) The LESSEE shall pay the electricity charges on actual consumption basis and
shall produce the receipts of such payments on demand to the LESSOR.

(e) The LESSOR shall ensure access to water supply to LESSEE, for 24 hours of
water supply through overhead tank or underground pump which supply is provided
by the local body / government authorities.

10. POWER

The LESSOR shall provide access to power in the said premises in the agreed
manner, at the LESSOR‘s cost for the exclusive use of the LESSEE. The LESSOR
shall provide a separate meter and the actual electricity consumption charges will be
paid as per the applicable tariff by the LESSEE to the authorities concerned and
photo copies of the receipts for payments made shall be given to the LESSOR as and
when required.

AIR CONDITIONING

The LESSEE may have the said premise fully/partially air conditioned at its cost and
the LESSOR shall have no objection in the LESSEE installing the air-conditioning
units in such location and in such manner as deemed suitable for satisfying the
requirement of the LESSEE subject to condition that it does not damage the structure
or resulting health hazard and the area occupied by Air condition equipment are rent
free.

11. SIGNAGE

The LESSEE shall be permitted to put up its signage and promote its branding in the
said property/said space as per Lessee‘s design, cost, and plan in the said premises.
12. CAR PARKING

The LESSOR shall put the LESSEE in possession of 6 (six) dedicated Car Parking.

Page |
117
13. INSURANCE

The LESSEE shall insure the said premises and all the fixtures and fittings, within the
said premises at the LESSEE'S cost.

14. TRANSFER

If at any time during the subsistence of this agreement, the LESSOR intends to sell its
right, title and interest in the said premises, then the LESSOR shall be at liberty to
dispose of his interest in the said premises to any other person. But such disposal shall
in no way affect or prejudice the rights of the LESSEE under this agreement. The
LESSOR shall further ensure that the prospective buyer of the said premises executes
a lease deed with LESSEE on the same terms and conditions as applicable herein
between the LESSOR and the LESSEE. All costs for such execution of lease deed
including but not limited to registration and stamp duty shall not be the responsibility
of the LESSEE and the same shall be borne by the LESSOR only.

15. TERMINATION

A. In case of any breach on the part of the Lessee, of any of the terms and conditions
contained herein, the Lessor shall be entitled to terminate this lease by giving the
Lessee 1 (one) months‘ Notice in writing of his intention to do so.

B. In case the Lessee is desirous of terminating this Lease, the Lessee may do so, only
pursuant to the completion of the Lock-In period of 3 years, by giving to the Lessor 1
(one) months‘ Notice, in writing of its intention to do so.

16. CONSEQUENCE OF TERMINATION

On expiry or sooner determination of this Deed of Lease, it is agreed that the

LESSEE shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the said premises to the
LESSOR and the LESSOR shall refund to the Lessee the amount of Interest Free
Security Deposit after deducting any amount that may be payable by the Lessee to

Page |
118
the Lessor or towards any dues that may be payable by the Lessee to any authorities
in respect of the said premises.

17. FORCE MAJEURE

Neither the LESSOR nor the Lessee shall be held responsible for any consequences or
liabilities under this Lease if they are prevented in performing their obligations under
the terms of this Agreement for Lease by reason of any contingencies caused by
neither of the Parties and unforeseen occurrences of any event such as Act of God,
Act of Nature, War, and Act of Government such as restrictive Governmental Laws or
regulations.

18. RENEWAL

This Agreement may be renewed after expiry of the period specified herein at the
option of the LESSEE and LESSOR on the terms and conditions to be mutually
agreed upon at that point in time and subject to fresh terms of Rent.

19. PARTIAL INVALIDITY

If any provision of this Agreement for Lease or the application thereof to any
circumstance shall be invalid, void or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of
this Agreement for Lease and the application of such provisions shall continue to be
effective and each such provision of this Agreement for Lease shall be valid and
enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

20. AMENDMENT OR MODIFICATION

Save as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Agreement for Lease, no amendment or

modification of this Agreement for Lease or any part hereof shall be valid and
effective unless it is by an instrument in writing executed by the Parties hereto or their
authorized representative and expressly referring to this Agreement for Lease.

Page |
119
21. COUNTER PARTS

This agreement shall be made in two counter parts and each party shall have one set
of the same and each shall be deemed to be an original document.

22. NOTICES

Any notice and other communications provided for in this Agreement shall be in
writing and shall be transmitted by registered post, or by recognized courier service
to the above mentioned addresses.

23. LEGAL EXPENSES

The parties shall bear the cost of their respective solicitors / legal advisors. In case of
the registration of this document, the cost incurred towards stamp duty, registration
fee and other incidental expenses shall be borne equally by the parties hereto.

24. The Courts in Ahmedabad only shall have exclusive jurisdiction for all and any
matters arising out of or concerning or relating to this Deed of Lease.

25. The Stamp Duty and Registration Fees payable on this Agreement shall be borne
and paid by Lessee. The Stamp Duty payable on this Lease Deed is calculated as
under:

Description Stamp Duty

SCHEDULE – A
( PREMISES )

District Sub district Ahmedabad Taluka City Moje Vejalpur having its TP scheme no.
3, Final Plot No. 198 (having Survey no. 1274) on which Dev Aurum Commercial
Complex has been constructed otherwise known as Dev Aurum on which Shop No. 1
on the Ground Floor admeasuring about 73.58sq.mts. at Dev Aurum Showroom and

Page |
120
offices, Anannagar cross Road, opposite madhur Hall, 100ft, Road, Prahladnagar,
Ahmedabad.

IN WITNESS WHERE OF THE PARTIES HAVE SET FORTH THEIR

SIGNATURES ON THE RESPECTIVE DAYS AS MENTIONED BELOW
SIGNED AND DELIVERED
BY THE WITHIN NAMED
JAY GAUTEMBHAI SHAH

SIGNED AND DELIVERED

BY THE WITHIN NAMED
SHREE ONETEN
KATHIYAWADI RESTAURANT
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED PARTNER
KESHARSINH L. RAJPUT

IN THE PRESENCE OF :

NAME :
ADDRESS :

NAME :
ADDRESS :

Page |
121
 8. Deed of Simple Mortgage

THIS Memorandum of Agreement made by us

(1) Harshit Siddharthbhai Patel, aged about 50 years, Occupation Service and
(2) Siddharth Bhailalbhai Patel, aged about 60 years, Occupation Business,
both Residing at 36, Somnath Society, Maninagar, Ahmedabad-( herein-after
described in this Mortgage Deed as ("Mortgagors") on this_24 day of April, 2019
Witnesseth as follows:-

1. In consideration of CORPORATION BANK, a body Corporate constituted under

The Banking Companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) Act, 1980 having
its Head Office at Mangalore and branches, inter alia one at Manainagar Branch,
Shrusthi-2, Punit Ashram Road, Maninagar, Ahmedabad 380008 represented by their
duly constituted attorney/ Senior/Branch Manager Mr. Prem Prakash here-inafter
called "The Bank" in this Document as "MORTGAGEE" making of continuing to
make advance or otherwise giving credit or affording Housing Loan to (1) Harshit
Siddharthbhai Patel, aged about 50 years, Occupation Service and (2) Siddharth
Bhailalbhai Patel, aged about 60 years, Occupation Business, both Residing at 36,
Somnath Society, Maninagar, Ahmedabad, for as long as the Bank may think fit, at
their at Maninagar Branch, Shrusthi-2, Punit Ashram Road, Maninagar,
Ahmedabad.380008 office or any other office upto Corp. Home Loan of
Rs.25,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty five Lakhs only) exclusive of interest, discount, bank
charges, legal charges etc. We have on the dtd.24/04/2019 deposited with The
Corporation Bank, Maninagar Branch, Shrusthi-2, Punit Ashram Road, Manianagar,
Ahmedabad.380008 of the Mortgagee Bank as original title deeds for mentioned in
Schedule"A" here to relating to the Immovable Property of the said owners in their
joint names more particularly described in the Schedule"B" hereto with an intent to
create Mortgage by Deposit of Title deeds on our property described in Schedule"B"
hereto as a continuing as main securities for the payment to the Bank of all and every
sum of money which then or thereafter were or shall at any time be owing to the Bank
by the aforesaid Home Loan banking facility to (1) Harshit Siddharthbhai Patel, aged

Page |
122
about 31 years, Occupation Service and (2) Siddharth Bhailalbhai Patel, aged about
33 years, Occupation Business, both Residing at 12, Mittal Apartment, Opp.
Gurudwara, Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008, any where no our/its/ my Current
Account(s) or any other account's (Home Loan, Cash Credit, Over Drafts etc.)
whether from us solely or jointly with any other person's including the amount of any
notes or bills discounted or paid or other loan, credit or advances made to or for the
accommodation or at the request either of above said Mortgagors and themselves
solely or jointly or any monies for which may be liable to the Bank or in any way
whatsoever, together with, in all the cases aforesaid, all interest at the rates fixed by
the Bank from time to time, as per the directives of Reserve Bank of India,
compounding on monthly on all debit balances on the respective dates as per rules
and regulations prevailing in the Bank, from time to time, such interest being debited
to the account and treated as principal in case of non payment on due date and also
together with commission, discount and other bank charges including legal charges
occasioned by or incidental to holding of the title as security or any other security
held by or offered to the Bank for the same indebtedness or by/to enforcement of any
such securities.

2. The property described in SCHEDULE"B" here to is held by us and the same is

free from prior encumbrances, charges and claims of any kind whatsoever.

SCHEDULE"A"
LIST OF TITLE DEEDS DEPOPSITED BY

(1) Harshit Siddharthbhai Patel and (2) Siddharth Bhailalbhai Patel

1. Original Allotment Letter dt.10.5.2001 issued by SARSWATI Co.op.Housing

Society Ltd. in the names of Tusharbhai Rameshbhai Desai and Radhika Tushar
Desai.

2. Original Certificate dtd.13.12.01 issued by SARSWATI Co.op.Housing Society

Ltd. in the names of Tusharbhai Rameshbhai Desai and Radhika Tushar Desai
handing over possession of Flat No.C/22 of Yash Tower.

Page |
123
3. Original Share Certificate No.71 for share No.400 to 405 dtd.7.12.2001 issued by
SARSWATI Co.op.Housing Society Ltd. duly transferred in the names of Tusharbhai
Rameshbhai Desai and Radhika Tushar Desai by Transfer No.9 dt.31.12.03.

4. Original Sale Deed executed by Purshotambhai Karsanbhai Dafda in favour of

Tusharbhai Rameshbhai Desai and Radhika Tushar Desai which is registered before
Sub Registrar, Ahmedabad-4(Paldi) under Sr.No.3993/2003 on dtd.27.11.2003.

5. Original Sale Deed executed by Tusharbhai Rameshbhai Desai and Radhika Tushar
Desai in favour of (1) Harshit Siddharthbhai Patel and (2) Siddharth Bhailalbhai Patel
which is registered before Sub Registrar, Ahmedabad-10(Vejalpur) under Sr.
No.377_/2019 on dated.01/012019 along with R.R. and Index.II..

6. Latest Light Bill.

7. Latest Tax Bill.

SCHEDULE"B"

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTIES MORTGAGED AND COVERED BY THE

TITLE DEEDS DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE"A" OF HARSHIT
SIDDHARTHBHAI PATEL AND SIDDHARTH BHAILALBHAI PATEL:

ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL of constructed property bearing Flat No.C/22,
2nd Floor of SARSWATI Co.op. Housing Society Ltd. Vibhag-10 (Otherwise known
as "Yash Tower"), admeasuring about 115 Sq.Yds. i.e. 95.15 Sq. Mtrs, lying and
situated at Survey No.1255 Paiki, T.P. Scheme No.3, Final Plot No.182 Paiki of
Mouje Vejalpur, within the Registration Sub-District and District Ahmedabad -10
(Vejalpur), along with undivided share in the land of Society and bounded as under:-

East:- Residential Society;

West:- After leaving the wall of Lift,Flat No.C/23;
North:- Flat No.C/21;

Page |
124
South:-Temple;

Muni.Tenament No.0625-15-3305-0001-H.
Torent Power Ltd. Service No.3133488;

In witness whereof the above named have affixed our signatures on 24 day of April,
2019 above written at Ahmedabad.

1 2

Harshit Siddharthbhai Patel Siddharth Bhailalbhai Patel

In the presence of the

Following Witnesses:-

Page |
125
 Unit: 4 Miscellaneous

1. Appeal before Consumer Commission

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

GUJARAT STATE COMMISSION
AT AHMEDABAD

APPEAL NO. OF 2019.

( Preferred against Order dated 30.09.2015 passed by

the Hon‘ble Consumder Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ahmedabad District )

Majdur Carz Pvt. Ltd.

Ground Floor,
S. G. Road,
Makarba,
Ahmedabad.

….. Appellant

Versus

1. Tirth Patel
Rudhika Row Hou,
Ramdevnagar,
Satellite,
Ahmedabad.

Page |
126
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Zodiac Square, 3rd Floor,
Off No. 7 to 9,
Opp. Gurudwara,
S. G. Road, Bodakdev,
Ahmedabad. Respondent

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

The appellant above named respectfully submits as under :

1. The present appellant has preferred this Appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Hon‘ble
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District, in Complaint
No.202/2014. A certified copy of the said Order is produced herewith and marked as
‗Annexure A‘.

2. The brief facts leading the present case are as under :

(i) The appellant is the authorised dealer of Renault Cars. The respondent no. 2 is
carrying on business of various types of insurance. The respondent no.1 i.e. the
original complainant had insured his car bearing registration no. GJ-1-KS-7363 with
the present respondent no. 2 i.e. the original opponent no. 1. The said car met with an
accident on 02.07.2013 with another vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-12-X-1125.
The said car was brought to the workshop of the appellant. The appellant appointed a
surveyor and an estimate of repairs was prepared. The respondent no. 1 intimated the
respondent no. 2 insurance company. The respondent no. 2 appointed a surveyor viz.

Page |
127
SAP Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to assess the loss / repair cost of the insured vehicle. After
detailed survey, the surveyor submitted Final Survey Report on 08.12.2014 and
assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,64,750.87. Further, it was categorically observed
that the car was repairable. The actual loss assessed by the surveyor amounted to
Rs.4,64,750.87. The said loss was not more than 75% of IDV. Therefore, the
respondent no. 2 did not accept the total loss basis and sanctioned the repairs on the
said vehicle. Further, the respondent no. 1 himself intimated the appellant to proceed
with the repair of the said car.

(ii) The appellant submits that there was disagreement by and between the respondent
no.1 and the respondent no. 2 regarding whether the car should be treated as total loss
or not. The appellant submits that the respondent no. 1 did not accept the surveyed
amount as sanctioned by the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, the respondent no. 1
filed the complaint before the Hon‘ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ahmedabad. A copy of the complaint is produced at Annexure B.

(iii) The appellant very specifically and categorically states that the appellant is not in
any manner involved with the insurance of the said car. The appellant has no decision
making power with respect to any insurance claim that may be made. The appellant
has no right of any nature whatsoever regarding the acceptance or rejection of a claim.
All such claims are surveyed, evaluated and decided upon by the respondent no. 2
insurance company. Under the circumstances, pursuant to making the claim for
insurance by the respondent no.1, the appellant had no say in the matter of the claim.
Further, the appellant was assured by the respondent no.1 that the matter would be
settled by and between the respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2 inter se and that the
appellant would not be responsible in any manner.

(iv) The appellant submits that upon receiving instructions from the respondent no.1
and no. 2 to repair the said car, the appellant undertook the repair work and has
completed the repair work and the said car in is road worthy condition since long
time. The appellant submits that the said car is lying in road worthy condition at the
workshop of the appellant. The appellant submits that the appellant has carried out
repairs to the said car and the costs towards the same including price of replaced /
repaired parts as well as labour costs amounts to Rs. 4,65,000. The bill towards the

Page |
128
same has been raised in the name of the respondent no.1 and has been sent to and
received by the respondent no. 1. However, the respondent no.1 has failed and
neglected to pay for the repair cost and the respondent no.1 has also failed to take
delivery of the same. Photographs of the said car lying at the workshop of the
appellant, pursuant to completion of repair work are produced at ‗Annexure C‘.

(v) The present appellant has learnt about the Complaint No. 202 of 2014 as well as
the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Hon‘ble Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ahmedabad, when the present appellant was served upon with a copy of
Appeal No. 377 of 2016 filed by the respondent no. 2. The appellant submits that the
dispute regarding the claim amount is a matter between the respondent no.1 and
respondent no. 2 inter se. The appellant submits that there has been no deficiency in
service or negligence on the part of the appellant. The appellant has repaired the car
and the said car is lying in road worthy condition at the premises of the appellant. In
spite of the same, the respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2 have failed to pay the
costs towards the same to the appellant. Under the circumstances, the appellant is not
liable to pay any amount to the respondent no. 1. On the contrary, the respondent
no.1 and respondent no. 2 are liable to pay the repair costs to the appellant.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated
30.09.2015 passed by the Hon‘ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad
Rural in Complaint No. 202 of 2014, the appellant has preferred this Appeal on the
following amongst other grounds :

GROUNDS

(1) The impugned judgment and order passed by the Hon‘ble Forum in erroneous and
bad in law and therefore the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(2) The impugned judgment is against the settled legal position and therefore the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Page |
129
(3) The Hon‘ble Forum has erred in not discharging the appellant on the ground of
mis-joinder of parties. No prayer has been sought for against the appellant and no
deficiency in service has been alleged against the appellant. The appellant is merely a
formal party to the complaint.

(4) The Hon‘ble Forum has failed to appreciate and take into consideration the Final
Survey Report dated 08.12.2014. The said survey report is detailed survey report and
all minute parts have been included by the surveyor barring few parts, for which the
surveyor has relied upon the estimate at the time of actual repairs. Thus, the surveyor
has assessed the loss / repairing cost to the tune of Rs.4,64,750.87/-. The IDV of the
said car is Rs.8,41,746/-. The repairing cost is clearly less than 75% of the IDV and,
therefore, as per the settled legal position, the same cannot be considered as total
loss. In spite of the same, the respondent no. 1 has made a claim on total loss basis.

(5) The Hon‘ble Forum has failed to consider that the respondent no. 1 and
respondent no. 2 instructed the appellant to proceed with the repair work and in
accordance with the same the appellant has proceeded with and completed the repair
work and that the said car is lying in road worthy condition at the workshop of the
appellant.

(6) The Hon‘ble Forum has failed to appreciate that the appellant is not in any manner
involved with the insurance of the said car. The appellant has no decision making
power with respect to any insurance claim that may be made. The appellant has no
right of any nature whatsoever regarding the acceptance or rejection of a claim.
Further, with respect to the claim for insurance by the respondent no.1, the appellant
had no say of any nature whatsoever in the matter of the claim. Under the
circumstances, the appellant is merely a formal party and no reliefs can be granted
against the appellant.

(7) The Hon‘ble Forum has failed to take into consideration that there has been no
deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the appellant. Upon receiving
instructions from the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 to repair the said car, the
appellant has proceeded with the repair work and the said car is lying in road worthy
condition at the premises of the appellant. The appellant has raised bill in the name

Page |
130
of the respondent no.1 towards costs of repair which includes price of replaced /
repaired parts and labour costs. In spite of the same, the respondent no.1 has failed to
pay the amount of the said bill and has also failed to take delivery of the said car.

(8) The Hon‘ble Forum ought to have considered that the appellant has satisfactorily
repaired the said car and that the appellant ought to be paid for the repairing costs for
the same.

(9) The Hon‘ble Forum has improperly relied upon the alleged letter produced by the
original complainant. The appellant submits that the original complainant had
alleged that the present appellant had addressed a letter to the original complainant
that the said car was a total loss. However, such letter does not bear any seal or
signature of the appellant and as such cannot be relied upon.

(10) The Hon‘ble Forum has erred in holding the present appellant responsible for the
rejection of the claim. The Hon‘ble Forum has grossly erred in holding that the
present appellant has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practise by
wrongly rejecting the claim of the respondent no. 1 with respect to the insured car.
The appellant submits that respondent no. 2 is the insurance company and the
respondent no. 2 is solely responsible and liable for all matters with respect to the
insurance of the said car. The survey, assessment and adjudication of claims, as well
as acceptance or rejection of claims is done solely by the respondent no. 2. The
present appellant is not involved with the same in any manner whatsoever. Under the
circumstances, the present appellant cannot be held responsible for a claim that was
rejected by the respondent no. 2.

(11) The Hon‘ble Forum has erred in directing the original opponents to consider the
claim on non-standard basis and pay 75% of IDV of insured car i.e. Rs.6,31,310/- to
the original complainant. It would be pertinent to note here insurance and claims
arising with respect to the same are the subject matter of the respondent no. 2
insurance company. The appellant herein has neither any authority nor any power to
take any claim related decisions and / or to pay any amounts towards claims. Under
the circumstances, the present appellant ought not to be directed to pay any amount to
the original complainant towards any claim.

Page |
131
(12) The Hon‘ble Forum has erred in holding the original opponents responsible and
directing the original opponents to pay to the original complainant the amount of
Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental stress and Rs.3,000/- towards costs.

(13) The Hon‘ble Forum has erred in not taking into consideration the prayer sought
for by the original complainant. The original complainant has sought for the amount
payable to him under the policy as the car met with an accident during the subsistence
of the policy. The respondent no. 2 insurance company is solely liable for payment
of all claims and the appellant is not liable for the same in any manner whatsoever.
Under the circumstances, the appellant is merely a formal party and the appellant
ought not to be directed to pay any amount to the respondent no.1 towards any claim
under the insurance policy.

(14) The impugned order has been passed without due application of mind and
without considering the provisions of law.

(15) Even otherwise, the order of the Hon‘ble Forum is erroneous and bad in law and
deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or rescind any of the averments
and grounds made herein above with the kind permission of this Hon‘ble
Commission.

5. The appellant, therefore, prays that :

(A) The Hon‘ble Commission be pleased to admit and grant this appeal;

(B) The Hon‘ble Commission be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Hon‘ble Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District, in Complaint No. 202 of 2014;

(C) The Hon‘ble Commission be pleased to stay the execution and implementation of
the impugned order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Hon‘ble Consumer Disputes

Page |
132
Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District, in Complaint No. 202 of 2014, pending
hearing and final disposal of the present appeal;

(D) Any other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper be granted in
favour of the appellant.

Date :
Place : Ahmedabad.
Appellant
Mr. Majdur Carz Pvt. Ltd.
Through Authorized Signatory

VERIFICATION

I,Maheshbha pandit Authorized Signatory of Majdur Card. Pvt.Ltd adult, residing at

Ahmedabad, the authorised person of the appellant, do hereby verify and state that
what is stated herein above is true and correct.

Date :
Place : Ahmedabad.

BEFORE THE HON‘BLE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

GUJARAT STATE COMMISSION
AT AHMEDABAD

APPEAL NO. OF 2019.

Majdur Carz Pvt. Ltd. ….. Appellant

Versus

Page |
133
Tirth Patel & Anr. …… Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Maheshbha pandit Authorized Signatory of Majdur Card. Pvt.Ltd of Majdur Carz.

Pvt.Ltd, adult, residing at Ahmedabad, do hereby state on solemn affirmation and
make this Affidavit as under :

1. I am the Authorized Signatory of the appellant and being conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the case am competent to make this Affidavit.

2. I have read and understood the contents of the foregoing Appeal and state that what
is stated therein is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and I
believe the same to be true.
What is stated herein above is true and correct.

Solemnly affirmed before me on this 23 day of May 2019 at Ahmedabad.

Page |
134
 2. Caveat Application

Before The Hon'Ble Judicial Magistrate Civil Court At Unja

Caveat Application No. Of 2016

Rabari Nagjibhai Chehorbhai

4/135, Moto Rabarivas, Village Upera,
Ta. Unja, Distrtict Mahesana.
CAVETOR…
Versus

Rabari Devabhai Varavabhai

Moto Rabarivas, Village Upera,
Ta. Unja, Distrtict Mahesana.
Opponent…

Caveat Application under Section 148 – a of the Code of Civil Procedure

Most Respectfully Sheweth That

1…The above name caveator/ applicant is senior citizen and residing at the address as
mentioned in cause title. The above named caveator/applicant i.e. the proposed
opponent apprehends that the above named opponent (proposed plaintiff) may
approach this hon‘ble Court seeking ex parte relief and/or stay or injunction against
the applicant (proposed opponent) in connection with property located at Home no.
4/135, Moto Rabarivas, Village Upera, Ta. Unja, Distrtict Mahesana, where the
present caveator/applicant renovating his home for his own living.

2 …A copy of present a Caveat application has been sent to the opponent here in by
post, in proof where of the postal receipt is produced here with. The

Page |
135
acknowledgement would be produced on receipt thereof from the post office after
service.

3…Kindly therefore, show our name as appearing for the proposed opponent as soon
as the proceeding above mentioned, are filed the and the matter may not be taken up
for admission and stay and/or stay pending admission before hearing us. We are
producing here with following documents.

1. Vakalatanama in our favour.

2. Receipt of India Post showing the postage of Caveat application.

4…The applicant/ Caveator therefore prays that .

(A) The applicant, the Caveator may kindly be heard before passing an order in the
proposal proceedings before the Hon‘ble court related to the afore mentioned
property.
(B) Pass Such Other and further order that it may find feet and proper in the facts and
circumstances.

Place: Unja
Date:16/11/2016 Signature of the Caveator

Verification

I Rabari Nagjibhai Chehorbhai ,Residing at 4/135, Moto Rabarivas, Village Upera,

Ta. Unja, Distrtict Mahesana., do hereby state and verify that whatsoever stated above
is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Place:Unja
Date: 16/11/2016 Signature of the Caveator

Page |
136
Before The Hon'Ble Judicial Magistrate Civil Court At Unja
Caveat Application No. Of 2016

Rabari Nagjibhai Chehorbhai

CAVETOR…
Versus

Rabari Devabhai Varavabhai

Affidavit

I Rabari Nagjibhai Chehorbhai , Religion Hindu, Age 68 years Residing at 4/135,

Moto Rabarivas, Village Upera, Ta. Unja, Distrtict Mahesana.,, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state that I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the subject-
matter of the captioned application and further state on solemn affirmation that what
is stated in paras 1 to 3 and are submissions of facts, and para 4 contains the prayer
clauses and I believe the same to be true to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief.

Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on this 16th day of November 2016.

Deponent

Page |
137
3. Model Arbitration Clause Agreement

BEFORE THE HON’BLE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

AT AHMEDABAD

Krishna Retail Ltd. ….. Claimant

Versus

C.g Square Arcade Pvt. Ltd. .................................................Opponent

APPLICATION BY THE OPPONENT

U/S 17 OF THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT.

The Opponent above named most respectfully submits as under :

1. The Opponent herein has given on lease to the Claimant the premises being unit no.
2 and 102 in the C.g Square Arc Complex, C G. Road, Ahmedabad. The terms and
conditions for the same have been agreed upon by and between the parties hereto and
have been recorded in the Term Sheet. As per the said agreed terms, the claimant is
liable to pay rent @ Rs.80/- per sq.ft. per month to the opponent.

2. The Opponent submits that the claimant has grossly violated the terms and
conditions of the Term Sheet. The claimant has deliberately and intentionally failed
and neglected to sign and execute the Lease Agreement with respect to the said
premises. Further, the claimant has forced and coerced the opponent to reduce the
rate of lease rent and by employing various means and by making various kinds of
false and baseless allegations, has attempted to make the opponent accept a reduction
in rate of lease rent. The opponent categorically submits that a reduction in rate of

Page |
138
lease rent as well as the undue and uncalled for insistence on the part of the claimant
to force the opponent to accept a reduction in rate of lease rent are both against the
very core of terms of the Term Sheet. The conduct, attitude and approach of the
claimant all along, clearly shows and establishes that it has absolutely no intention of
paying lease rent to the opponent at the agreed rate of Rs.80/- per sq. ft. per month
towards the said premises being peacefully used and enjoyed by the claimant.

3. The opponent further submits that the claimant had made an Application u/s 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Hon‘ble District Court, at
Ahmedabad, being C. M. A. No. 10 / 2009, wherein absolutely false and baseless
allegations were made by the claimant against the opponent. The opponent submits
that the claimant is now taking undue advantage of the order dated 26.08.2009 passed
in the said proceedings and has also blatantly violated the said order by not paying the
lease rent to the opponent as per the agreed rate as per the direction of the Hon‘ble
Court and is, thus, guilty of contempt of court.
4. The opponent submits that in spite of the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the
Hon‘ble Court in C.M.A. No.10/2009 to go on depositing the Lease Rent amount
regularly on or about 10th of every month as per the terms and conditions and in spite
of having agreed to the terms and conditions of lease viz. lease rent at the rate of
Rs.80/- per sq. ft. per month, the claimant, taking undue advantage of the judicial
order, has acted shockingly and outrageously by unilaterally and arbitrarily reducing
the rate of lease rent to Rs.40/- per sq.ft. per month i.e. reducing the lease rent @
50%, with effect from October 01, 2009. It would be pertinent to note here that the
claimant is peacefully enjoying the premises and carrying on business from the said
premises without any kind of disturbance or hindrance and is also using all the
various facilities and amenities provided therein by the opponent viz. lift, escalator,
A. C. Plant, electrical connections, etc. and on the other hand the claimant is
disturbing and harassing the other occupants of the complex and is also deliberately
flouting the rules of the Society with the clear intention of causing disturbance and
annoyance to the opponent and other members of the Complex.

5. The dishonest intentions of the claimant are very clear form the fact that vide letter
dated 16.12.2008, the claimant had conveyed to the opponent its desire to reduce the
size of the store and consequently reduce the lease rent citing sustainability issues.

Page |
139
Moreover, a draft of the Lease Agreement sent by the claimant to the opponent for
approval on 16.12.2008 mentioned the rate of lease rent at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.
f.t per month, as against the agreed rate of Rs.80/- per sq. ft. per month. Thus, the
claimant being in possession of the leased premises and carrying on business from the
said premises, has all along attempted to force and coerce the opponent to accept a
reduction of 50% in rate of lease rent and is using unfair and unlawful means to
achieve its vested interest.

6. The opponent submits that the attitude and conduct of the claimant and its
unilateral and shocking action of reducing the rate of lease rent by 50% with effect
from October 01, 2009 clearly establishes the dishonest and insincere intentions of the
claimant of not paying the lease rent at the agreed rate in spite of being in possession
of the property. Under the circumstances, it is necessary and in the interest of justice
that the claimant be directed to pay lease rent to the opponent at the agreed rate of
Rs.80/- per sq. ft. per month along with arrears. Further, the claimant also be
directed to produce the complete Statement of Accounts. Hence this Application.

7. The opponent, therefore, prays that :

(A) The Hon‘ble Arbitrator be pleased to direct the claimant to pay to the opponent,
the lease rent regularly at the agreed rate of Rs.80/- per sq. ft. per month i.e.
Rs.18,18,560/- as per the order passed by the Hon‘ble Disrict Court in C.M.A. No.
10/2009 to deposit the lease rent amount regularly on or about 10th of every month,
along with the arrears from 01.10.2009, and be further pleased to direct the claimant
to produce on record the Statement of Accounts.

(B) Any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper be granted.

Date : 22.01.2018.

Ahmedabad.

Page |
140
 4. Complaint u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MEGISTRATE COURT AT

AMRELI

CRIMINAL CASE NO. /2019

Complainant: Nishith Anilbhai Parikh

Age. 44 years , Occupation : Business
Residing at, C/903, Satyam Insigniya, Chandan Party Plot, Opp Sarthi Bunglows,
Satellite, Jodhpur, Ahmedabad.380015.

Versus

Accuse: (1) M/s Alpine Tradelink Pvt. Ltd

30, 31,42,43,44 Silicon Industrial Hub, Opp. HOF, Bavla Highway, Mouje Moraiya,
Ahmedabad-382213.

(2) Smt.ManishabenJitendrakumar Rokad

702, Anjani Tower, Near AmraKadam Bungalows, Opp. Karnavati Club, Jodhpur,
Ahmedabad-380015.

(3) Smt. Pannaben Jashwantbhai Patel

31,Paras Status, Jalaram Parotha Gali, Science City, Sola
Ahmedabad-380060.

(4) Shri Praful Manganlal Pte

B-902, Silicon Valley,
Shivranjani Cross Roads, Satellite,
Ahmedabad-380015.

Page |
141
Complaint under section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981

The complainant above named, most respectfully begs to submit as under

1. That the complainant is residing at address mentioned in title cause and doing
business. And accuse no.1 company M/s. Alpine Tradelink Pvt. Ltd incorporated
under provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having their registered office at
30,31,42,43,44 Silicon Industrial Hub, Opp HOF, Bavla Highway, MoujeMoraiya,
Ahmedabad.382213 and doing business of pharma warehouse. Further, accuse no.2 to
4 are director of the accuse no.1 company M/s. Alpine Tradelink Pvt. Ltd and are in
charge of and are responsible for the conduct of the business and day to day affairs of
accuse no.1 company. Copy of the Directors record of the accuse no.1 company M/s.
Alpine Tradelink Pvt. Ltd is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure ―A‖.

2. The complainant says that on different dates complainant had given unsecured loan
of Rs.27,47,500/- (Twenty seven lakh forty seven thousand five hundred only) to the
accuse no.1 company M/s. Alpine Tradelink Pvt. Ltd and the same is duly reflected in
balance sheet of accuse no.1 company as filed with the office of the registrar of the
companies. The copy of the statutory audit report (year 2016-17) of accuse no.1
company M/s. Alpine Tradelink Pvt. Ltd is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure ―B‖. Further, on 30/09/2018 total amount of Rs.38,20,376/- (including inter
alia, principal and interest) remained due and payable by the accuse to the
complainant. To discharge said liabilities accuse no.2 Smt. Manishaben
Jitendrakumar Rokad issued below mentioned cheques in favor of the complainant.

Cheque Number Date Amount Name of Bank

001197 29/10/2018 Rs.20,00,000/- Kotak Mahindra
Bank Ltd
001200 01/11/2018 Rs.18,20,376/- Kotak Mahindra
Bank Ltd.

Page |
142
At the time issuing above cheques to the complainant accuse assured that both the
cheques would be honoured by payment by their bankers when presented for
payment. Original cheque No.001197 and cheque No. 001200 are annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure ―C‖ and ―D‖.

3. And as per the instruction of the accuse complainant had presented the said
cheques, namely, cheque No.001197 dated 29/10/2018 for Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees
twenty lakh only) and cheque No. 001200 dated 01/11/2018 for Rs. 18,20,376/-
(Rupees eighteen lakh twenty Thousand three hundred seventy six only) for payment
but both the said cheques were returned dishonoured by bank of accuse with their two
separate cheque return memos both dated 02/11/2018, one in respect of the cheque
No.01197 dated 29/10/2018 for Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees twenty lakh only)and another
in respect of the cheque No.001200 dated 01/11/2018 for Rs. 18,20,376/- (Rupees
eighteen lakh twenty Thousand three hundred seventy six only) with the remarks
―FUNDS INSUFFICIENT‖ in case of both the cheques. Original cheques return
memos dated 02/11/2018 of cheque No.001197 and cheque No. 001200 are annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure ―E‖ and ―F‖.

4. After dishonored of the said cheques, all accuse did not reply and trying to avoid
their legal liability. Complainant states that subsequently, all accuse stopped
responding and communicating and also not cared to pay the promised amount, till
date. Complainant states that he is convinced that all accuse has no intention of
paying the amount and has deliberately cheated to the complainant.

5. The complainant reiterates that afore said cheques were issued by accuse no.2 Smt.
Manishaben Jitendrakumar Rokad for discharge the legal debt and liabilities of
accuse no.1 company M/s. Alpine Tradelink Pvt. Ltd towards the complainant and as
the same were return unpaid, the all accuse rendered themselves liable for an offence
of under section 138 and 141 of The Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant
says that the said cheques were issued with full knowledge, consent and authority.
6. The complainant submits that the after receipt of their banker endorsement on
aforesaid date thereafter the complainant issued legal notice dated 18/11/2018 through
registered A.D post calling upon them to pay the sum of Rs.38,20,376/- and the said
notice received by the all accuse on 22.11.2018. Copy of the legal notice dated

Page |
143
18.11.2018 and original receipts of India Post and copy of its tracking reports of the
India Post are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure ― G‖ ,―H‖ and ―I‖.

7. That the complaint is filing within the period of limitation.

8. That this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

9. The accuse has committed an offence punishable under section 138 and 141 of The
Negotiable Instrument Act by causing dishonor of cheques issued to the complainant
by accused towards legal due.

10. The complainant submits that the said cheques presented through the KOTAK
MAHINDRA BANK LTD (Service branch) Prernatirth Branch, Satellite,
Ahmedabad. And the return memo issued by the same branch. And further the
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, Parekh Chembers, ground floor and first floor,
Amreli-365601 is the mother branch of the account of the complainant therefore this
Hon‘ble court has jurisdiction to try this complaint.

11. LIST OF WITNESSES

1…Complainant

2…Authorized person of KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD (Service branch)

Prernatirth Branch, Satellite, Ahmedabad.

3…Authorized person of KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD Parekh Chembers,

Ground floor and first floor, Amreli-365601

4…The complainant reserves his right to examine any other witnesses, if necessary.

12. Therefore the complainant in the above case most respectfully prays that this
Hon‘ble court be please to

Page |
144
(A) Take cognizance at the offence committed by the accused no.1 to 4 under section
138 and 141 of The Negotiable Instrument Act and issue process against all accused
and punish in accordance with law.
(B) Grant compensation adequately in favour of the complainant the double of the
cheque amount.
(C) And kindly passed an order for interim compensation as per section 143A of The
Negotiable Instrument Act.
(D) And to grant such other relief as this Hon‘ble court may deem fit to grant in the
circumstances of the case in the interest of the justice.

13. The complainant submits that here enclosed the copy of the accused documentary
evidence and Vakalatanama.

14. Affidavit in support of above is filed herewith.

Amreli ---------------------------
Date. 01.01.2019 Signature of The complainant

VERIFICATION

I Mr. NishithAnilbhai Parikh, Age 44 years, Residing at, C/903, Satyam Insigniya,
Chandan Party Plot, Opp Sarthi Bunglows, Satellite, Jodhpur, and Ahmedabad.
380015 do hereby state that what is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.

Solemnly affirmed at, on 1st day of January, 2019.

Deponent

Page |
145
 5. Notice, Statutory Notice and Notice u/s 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881

Date:14/10/2019

Notice

To,

(1) Lalit Madanlal Kapoor

Managing Director of Sysmed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
301, Balkrishna Apartments, Near Kashivishwanath Temple,
Lalbuag Road, Vadodara.

(2) Sysmed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd

82/10, G.I.D.C , Makarpura, Vadodara.

Subject: Notice U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881

I Vanrajsinh Solanki Advocate for and on behalf of, under instruction of my client
Ramanlal Shah proprietor of SRG Distributor having its office at UGF 2, Green
Plaza, Complex , Ambli-Bopal Road, do hereby serve upon you this statutory
demand notice and state as under;

1…My client states that his company is engaged in the business of Manufacturing and
distributing of various pharmaceuticals products.

Page |
146
2…My client states that your company is engaged in the business of selling and
marketing various pharmaceutical products in the name of Sysmed Laboratory Pvt.
Ltd. My client states that for the purpose of business you purchase pharmaceutical
products from various distributors including my client.

3…My client states that you have purchased various pharmaceutical product from my
client at different intervals. My client also state that the total purchased amount
Rs.1,74,619/- is outstanding. My client states that for discharge your liability towards
the price of pharmaceuticals product purchased from my client you have issued two
cheques the detail of which are given as under;

: 2:

Cheque No Date Bank Amount

763343 11/9/2010 Indian Overseas Bank Rs94,819/-
763344 15/9/2010 Indian Overseas Bank Rs. 79,800/-

4…My client states that according to your instructions the aforesaid cheque No.
763343 and 763344 was deposited for clearing in his bank account. At that time you
assured my client that above mentioned cheques will be cleared by your bank. But
after all your assurance the said cheques were dishonored on 14/3/2009 and 17/3/2009
respectively on account of insufficient funds in your bank account.

5…My client states that upon dishonored of cheques as aforesaid my client

intimated you regarding same. My client further states that upon being intimated, you
informed my client to deposit both said cheque once again. My client states that
accordingly the said cheques was deposited for payment in his aforesaid account . My
client states that to the utter shock and surprising of my client, both the cheques were
dishonored on 11/3/2011 on account of insufficient funds in your bank account.

6…My client states that now my client is fully convinced that from the very inception
of the transaction in question you had no intention to pay the amount in respect of the

Page |
147
goods purchased from my client and that your hidden intention was to deceive my
client. That you had given the aforesaid cheque knowing fully well with the ulterior
motive to cheat my above said client and as thus you have also made yourself liable
for the commission of offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code also for which
my above said client reserve his right to lodge F. I. R. against you.

7…Though this legal notice we call upon you to pay my client the above said
cheques amount Rs.94,819/-and 79,800/- within 15days (fiftieen days) of the receipt
of this notice at Ahmedabad Office of my client. On your failure of make the
payment of the amount of the said cheques within fifteen days of the receipt of this
notice, my client shall be forced to initiate criminal proceedings for commission of
offence under section 138 of the negotiable Instrument Act against you.

8…This notice is caused to be issued because of your deliberate and intentional

default of not making payment of my client‘s legal debt and therefore you are liable to
pay notice charges and expenses amounting to Rs.2,500/- to my client.

Vanrajsinh Solanki
Advocate

Page |
148
6. Writ of Mandamus

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2019

In the matter of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

AND
In the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

AND
In the matter of sections 164 and 167 Companies Act, 2013

AND
In the matter between:

Umang Rakeshbhai Koisa

Male, Age: 65 years, Occupation: Business,
Residing at: 5423 Twin Creeks Dr,
Valricoflorida
Usa-33594 ...
Petitioner No.1

Versus

1. Union of India
Notice to be served through
The Secretary
Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Page |
149
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi

...Respondent No.1
2. The Registrar of Companies
ROC Bhavan,
Opp. Rupal Park Sociaty,
Bh. Ankur Bus Stand,
Naranpura, Ahmedabad
...Respondent No.2

TO,
THE HON‘BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND THE OTHER HON‘BLE JUDGES
OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
AT SOLA,AT AHMEDABAD
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT

1. By way of the present petition, the Petitioner are challenging the actions of the
Respondents whereby the Respondent no. 1 has declared the Petitioner as
Disqualified Directors by deactivating the Director Identification Number (for the
sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred to as "DIN") of the Petitioner
pursuant to the list dated 14.08.2018 of Struck Off Companies under Section 248 r/w.
164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for the sake of brevity and convenience
hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

The Petitioner respectfully submit that the said act of the Respondents is without any
prior notice to the Petitioner and/or affording any opportunity of hearing to the
Petitioner in gross abuse of process of law and in complete violation of the principles
of natural justice.

The list of purportedly Disqualified Directors has not been published by the
Respondent no.1 but it came to the notice of the Petitioner that the DIN of the
Petitioner has been deactivated some time in 2019 and the said act is done without
any application of mind and is completely unreasonable and arbitrary. The respondent

Page |
150
authorities are clubbing all such persons who are reflected in the records the Registrar
of Companies as Directors of Struck Off/ Defaulter Companies without carrying out
any inquiry/ investigation/due diligence whatsoever and have consequently
deactivated the DIN numbers. The Respondent no.2 has thus prejudged the entire
issue on the ground that all such persons including the Petitioner are purported
defaulters.

The deactivation of the DIN of the Petitioner is done without application of mind and
merely on the basis that the Petitioner are continued to be shown as Directors of such
company that have been struck off from the Register of Companies without
considering the fact that the Petitioner are holding positions as Directors in many
other companies which are going concerns and which companies are regular in filing
of all forms, returns, balance sheets etc as required under Companies Act, 2013 and
the said step of disqualification of the Petitioner under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act
has serious, severe and dire repercussions inasmuch as the same would affect the
Petitioner automatically losing their directorship in all other companies where they
are Directors from the date of such disqualification which purportedly predated to
01.11.2016 and continues for a period of 5 years till 31.10.2021. Consequently,
bringing into questions all actions taken by the Petitioner as Directors of all such
companies for the period 01.11.2016 till 31.10.2021 and the Petitioner is also exposed
to penal liability u/s. 167 of the Act.

Thus, the actions of Respondents in deactivating the DIN numbers of the Petitioner in
the said list and declaring the Petitioner as Disqualified Directors is manifestly
unilateral, highhanded, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and in complete violation of
the principles of natural justice, and is further violative of Petitioner' fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

The brief facts leading to the present petition are as under:-

2. The Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petitioner are nationals and citizens of
India. The Petitioner is persons of repute having the knowledge and experience in the
business of business, employers and professional organisations, etc. The Petitioner

Page |
151
has a right to enforce their fundamental rights as enshrined under the Constitution of
India.

3. The Respondents are the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Registrar of

Companies. The Respondent authorities deactivated the DIN of the Petitioner under
Section 164(2)(a) of the Act without any notice and the same has not been published
on the website of the Respondent no. 1.

4. The Petitioner respectfully submit that the Petitioner are holding the position as
Directors in the following companies:-

Petitioner no. 1 is a director in the following companies:

i. Z9 Data Drive Private Limited

ii. Intoft Solutions Private Limited
iii. Stat Billing Solutions Private Limited

A copy of the List of Companies in which the Petitioner are Directors is annexed
hereto and marked as "Annexure-A".
The Petitioner respectfully submit that a company by the name of Z9 Data Drive
Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company for the sake of brevity and
convenience) was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on
18th November, 2008 with the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat vide Registration
number 055462 and the CIN U72200GJ2008PTC055462 under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956 and its registered office is situated at FF-4, Block No.: C-2,
Nirman Complex, R.C. Technical Road, Ghatlodia Ahmedabad Gujarat- 380061. The
authorized share capital of the said Company is Rs.-500000/- and Paid up Capital was
Rs 125000/-. The present Petitioner no.1 was appointed as a director of the said
company on 13.10.1995 and petitioner no.2 and no. 2 were appointed as Directors of
the said Company since the date of incorporation. A copy of the Master Data of the
company is annexed herewith and marked "Annexure-B".

5. The Petitioner respectfully submit that the objects of the company were to Software
publishing, consultancy and supply Software publishing includes production, supply

Page |
152
and documentation of ready-made (non-customized) software, operating systems
software, business & other applications software, computer games software for all
platforms.

6. The Petitioner submits that the Company initially for one year after its
incorporation filed all statutory returns regularly. However, thereafter, since 2014 the
Company had been facing acute financial crisis due to which the Company was not
able to do any business. The Company therefore could not file statutory returns
including balance sheet, annual return, etc. with the office of respondent no.2.

7. The Petitioner submit that the respondent no.2 addressed a letter dated 9.5.2018 in
Form No.STK-1 under the provisions of Sec. 248(1) and (2) of Companies Act, 2013
intimating the Petitioner about its intention to remove the name of the Company from
the Register of Companies and calling upon the petitioner to send representation
along with copies of relevant documents, if any.

8. The Petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 issued public notices dated
10.5.2018 in Form No. STK-5 u/s. 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 declaring a list
of companies sought to be struck off from the Register of Companies wherein the
name of the company was listed.

9. The Petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 issued circular of striking off and
dissolution under Form No. STK-7 dated 14.8.2018 and 17.10.2018 thereby declaring
the list of companies which have been struck off from the register of companies and
are dissolved w.e.f. 6.8.2018. A copy of the notification dated 14.8.2018 and
17.10.2018 issued by respondent no.2 along with relevant excerpt of list of
companies, in which the name of the Company is included is annexed herewith and
marked as "Annexure-C".

10. The petitioner therefore carried out search and upon inquiry, it was found that not
only the name of the Company has been struck off, but the names of petitioner is also
disqualified. That in pursuance of the aforesaid Circulars, the Respondents
deactivated the DSC and DIN numbers of the Petitioner thereby preventing them from
filing any documents with regards to ―Z9 Data Drive Private Limited‖ and has

Page |
153
resultantly made the Petitioner ineligible to act as directors in other companies which
are fully functioning and have been regularly complying with all statutory provisions
of the Act. A copy of the screen shot from the website of the respondent no. 1 wherein
it shows that the DIN of the Petitioner has been deactivated under section 164 of the
Act is annexed herewith and marked as annexure as "Annexure-D Colly".

11. That the Respondents without even serving a show cause notice upon the
Petitioner or even affording the Petitioner an opportunity to justify their position, the
Respondent No. 1 issued the impugned Circulars and subsequently without publishing
a list have deactivated the DIN of the Petitioner which reflects on the website of
Respondent No. 1 thereby immediately disqualifying the Petitioner under Section
164(2)(a) r/w Section 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, it is a patent
violation of the Petitioner Fundamental Right to be heard and is a clear violation of
the Principles of Natural Justice as laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.

12. That Section 164(2)(a) is manifestly unjust and unreasonable as it not only
disqualifies those Directors who were Directors of the concerned Private Company
during the relevant more than three years during which the default was committed,
but also those persons who have been the Directors of the said company in the past as
well. Section 164 of Companies Act 2013 came to be notified on 01/04/2014. Section
164 (2) (a) reads as follows:

―164. DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR –

(2) No person who is or has been a director of a company which-

(a) has not filed financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of
three financial years; or
(b) has failed to repay the deposits accepted by it or pay interest thereon or to redeem
any debentures on the due date or pay interest due thereon or pay any dividend
declared and such failure to pay or redeem continues for one year or more,
shall be eligible to be re-appointed as a director of that company or appointed in other
company for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to
do so.‖

Page |
154
13. That the immediate disqualification of the Petitioner has been affected under
Section 167(1). Additionally, Section 167(2) makes any person who is, with the
knowledge of him/her being disqualified under Section 167(1), functioning as a
Director, liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year or with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to
five lakh rupees or both. Section 167reads as follows:

―167. Vacation of office of director

(1) The office of a director shall become vacant in case—

(a) he incurs any of the disqualifications specified in section 164;
(b) He absents himself from all the meetings of the Board of Directors held during a
period of twelve months with or without seeking leave of absence of the Board;
(c) He acts in contravention of the provisions of section 184 relating to entering into
contracts or arrangements in which he is directly or indirectly interested;
(d) He fails to disclose his interest in any contract or arrangement in which he is
directly or indirectly interested, in contravention of the provisions of section 184;
(e) He becomes disqualified by an order of a court or the Tribunal;
(f) He is convicted by a court of any offence, whether involving moral turpitude or
otherwise and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than six
months:
Provided that the office shall be vacated by the director even if he has filed an appeal
against the order of such court;
(g) He is removed in pursuance of the provisions of this Act;
(h) he, having been appointed a director by virtue of his holding any office or other
employment in the holding, subsidiary or associate company, ceases to hold such
office or other employment in that company.

(2) If a person, functions as a director even when he knows that the office of director
held by him has become vacant on account of any of the disqualifications specified in
subsection (1), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year or with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which
may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.

Page |
155
(3) Where all the directors of a company vacate their offices under any of the
disqualifications specified in sub-section (1), the promoter or, in his absence, the
Central Government shall appoint the required number of directors who shall hold
office till the directors are appointed by the company in the general meeting.

(4) a private company may, by its articles, provide any other ground for the vacation
of the office of a director in addition to those specified in sub-section (1).‖

14. That Section 164(2)(a) does not only attract disqualification from the Company
that has defaulted in filing its Financial Statements or Annual Returns but also from
other Companies in which the disqualified person at the time of disqualification held
the office of a Director. Such a penalty is highly irrational and unreasonable and is in
grave violation of the fundamental rights of the disqualified director under Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the disqualification has to apply only
to reappointment of directors but not existing directorships.

15. Even otherwise, no due notice was served to the company‘s registered address
highlighting the defaults.

16. The Petitioner‘ reputation has also been badly tarnished due to the impugned
disqualification which is even otherwise in clear violation of principles of natural
justice and violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

GROUNDS

A. It is apparent that the impugned decisions/ declarations of the Respondents are

affiliated by manifest arbitrariness, malafides and violation of natural justice. The
illegalities on the part of Respondent are all the more stark considering that no
hearing or show cause notice whatsoever was given to the Petitioner at any point of
time before passing the impugned decision. On this ground alone i.e. violation of
natural justice and unfairness, the impugned decisions deserve to be quashed and/or
set aside.

Page |
156
B. The Respondent is a ‗State‘ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and is expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner in all spheres of its
activities. In the instant case, the actions of the Respondent are clearly arbitrary,
unreasonable and illegal and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India.

C. It is a settled position of law that non-application of mind to material on record

constitutes a violation of natural justice and/or vitiates a decision taken in ignorance
thereof.

D. This being the position of law governing Disqualification of Directors, the

Respondent without any enquiry, show cause notice or intimation and in utter
violation of principles of natural justice have disqualified the Petitioner from holding
the post of Director in any Company till 31.10.2021. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in
the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, reported at (1978) 2 SCC 248 has held
that any action taken without service of notice or giving opportunity of hearing to the
notice by the State and its authorities is illegal. In the present case also, the respondent
no.2 before taking the impugned action has not served any notice or given any
opportunity of hearing. The impugned action therefore is illegal and requires to be
quashed and set aside.

E. It is submitted that the Petitioner is disqualified by the respondent no.2 without

giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The impugned action of
the respondent no.2 therefore is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and
hence, null and void. The impugned action is thus in gross violation of the rights of
the Petitioner under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

F. The Petitioner submit that under the New Act which came to be notified replacing
the 1956 Act, if a Director of a Company u/s. 164(2)(a) of the Act, 2013 has not filed
the financial statements or annual returns for a continuous period of 3 financial years,
then he shall not be eligible to be appointed as director of that Company or appointed
in any other company for a period of 5 years.

Page |
157
Thus, the above provision makes it clear that if a Director of the Company has not
filed any financial statement for a continuous period of 3 financial years, then he shall
not be eligible for reappointment as director of that company or in any other company
for a period of 5 years. The provision nowhere provides that the Director of a
defaulting company shall be discontinued from the position of a Director from other
companies who have not committed any such default. Therefore, the respondent no.2
while publishing the impugned list has misconstrued and misinterpreted Sec. 164(2)
of the Act. The impugned list therefore is illegal and liable to be quashed and set
aside.

G. The impugned action of the respondent no.2 in disqualifying the Petitioner as

directors qua other active companies has far reaching and grave ramifications and
could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice.

H. The impugned action of the respondent no.2 is not only highhanded but is also
arbitrary. The Respondent no.2 has also fully predetermined the issues and without
application of mind has passed the impugned decision. The respondent no.2 has failed
to appreciate that the Petitioner cannot be disqualified u/s. 248 of the Act.

I. Further, the action of the Respondent is not merely an administrative action but a
quasi-judicial action which necessarily warranted compliance with the principles of
natural justice. It is submitted that in view of the failure of the Respondent to follow
the principles of natural justice, the disqualification of the Petitioner from acting as a
Director is a void and ought to be set aside.

J. In any event, it is settled law that even for an administrative action there must be
minimum standard of principles of natural justice that are to be followed. In any
event, the action taken by the Respondent no.2 is not purely an administrative action
but a quasi-judicial one having civil and evil consequences and hence, the principles
of natural justice have to be followed. Thus, the impugned action of respondent no.2
is illegal and unsustainable in law and requires to be quashed and set aside.

K. If an administrative body has the power to decide and in exercise of such power,
takes a decision detrimental to the prejudice of a person, a duty is cast on such

Page |
158
authority to act judicially which is implicit in exercise of such power and that the rule
of natural justice operates even when the legislation does not provide for the same
specifically. It is further submitted that where there is nothing in the statute to actually
prohibit the giving of an opportunity of being heard, the nature of the statutory duty
imposed on the decision maker itself implies an obligation to hear before deciding.

L. The manner in which the Respondent has conducted itself tantamount to a gross
abuse and misuse of power and is also vitiated by patent malafide. Ex facie, the
conduct of the Respondent is without jurisdiction, without authority of law contrary to
law and is void ab initio.

M. The arbitrary acts of the Respondent have caused grave injury to the Petitioner and
have curtailed the Petitioner‘ fundamental right to carry on business as guaranteed by
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

17. For the reasons as stated above, the Petitioner has an overwhelming/prima facie
case on merits. The factors of irreparable harm, loss and injury and the balance of
convenience are in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent. If the
Impugned List is not stayed as against the Petitioner, the Petitioner will be put to great
hardship and his fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution will be prejudicially affected. Therefore, in the interest of justice
intervention of this Hon'ble Court is called for at this stage itself.

18. The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is entitled to institute and/or maintain
the present petition against the Respondent who is State within the meaning of Article
12 of the Constitution of India, and as such amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court. Further, action of the Respondent has impacted the Petitioner‘
Directorship and consequently, their rights to do business within jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court. Hence, the present petition.

19. The impugned action is afflicted by manifest arbitrariness and violation of the
principles of natural justice. The Petitioner is therefore entitled to impugn the same
and seek judicial review thereof as and by way of the present petition.

Page |
159
20. The Petitioner has no other alternative and/or equally efficacious remedy. The
reliefs prayed for in this petition alone if granted, would do complete, full and
effective justice to the Petitioner.

21. The Petitioner has not filed any other petition either in this Hon'ble Court, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; or in any other High Court, with regard to the
subject matter of present petition.

22. The Petitioner crave leave to add, amend, alter or rescind the memo of petition, if
and when found necessary.

23. The Petitioner, therefore, pray that-

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the
Respondents:
(i) to reactivate and defreeze the DIN of the Petitioner;
(ii) to refrain from acting upon and/or implementing the impugned disqualification;
(iii) to quash and set aside the action of the Respondents of deactivating the DIN of
the Petitioner u/s 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 which are 01782239 and
subsequently, activate the said DIN numbers of the Petitioner.

(B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the Hon‘ble Court
may kindly be pleased to :-
(i) to reactivate and defreeze the DIN of the Petitioner;
(ii) to direct the Respondent to accept all applications, filings including e-filing by the
Petitioner in their capacity as Directors of all Companies set out at Annexure-A and
not to treat the Petitioner as disqualified directors u/s 164 of the Act hereto A. This
Hon‘ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief that this Hon‘ble Court
may deem fit in the larger interest of substantial justice.

Page |
160
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL ALWAYS PRAY
FOR.

Place:
Date: (Advocate for the Petitioner)

AFFIDAVIT

I,Umang Rakeshbhai Koisa, S/O- Rakeshbhai Koisa, Age: 65 years, Occupation:

Business, Residing at: 5423 Twin Creeks Dr, Valricoflorida USA-33594, so hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath that the content of para to of the petition are the true
statement of facts on the basis of my knowledge, information, belief and records; and
the content of para to are the legal submission and the content of para is the prayer
clause.

Solemnly affirmed and declared to be true today on this day of 2019.

Deponent
Identified by me
Advocate

Page |
161
 7. Consumer Complaint

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM AT:

AHMEDABAD

C.C. NO. /2018

Complainant: Mr. Rahul Girdharilal Bajaj,

Residing at:
BE-166, Salt Lake City,
Sector-I, Bidhan Nagar,
North 24 PGS.,
Kolkata-700064.

Versus

Opponents:

(1) Applewoods Estate Pvt. Ltd.,

16, Abhishree Corporate Park,
Opp. Madhurya Restaurant,
Iscon-Ambli Road,
Ahmedabad-380058.

(2) Supal Shah

Authorized signatory of
Applewoods Estate Pvt. Ltd.,
16, Abhishree Corporate Park,
Opp. Madhurya Restaurant,
Iscon-Ambli Road,
Ahmedabad-380058.

Page |
162
SUBJECT: COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, 1986

Most respectfully showeth

1. That the complainant had booked one 2 BHK flat from the present opponents being
flat No. 505 in M Tower of the scheme named ―SORREL‖ to purchase. The opponent
no. 1 is a company, running its business of building construction as well as sale of the
unit of the constructed building from its registered office situated at the address
mentioned in the cause title. The opponent no. 2 is the authorized persons of the
opponent no. 1 to take decision and enter into the any agreement or sale deed with the
customer on behalf of the opponent no.1.

2. That the complainant had also paid Rs. 8,00,000/- by way of two cheques in the
year of 2010 and 2012 respectively to the opponents herein. Thus it is not disputed
that the complainant had complied with the payment terms stipulated by the
opponents herein for booking of the above said unit i.e. flat No. 505. Subsequently on
20.03.2014, One notarized ―Booking Agreement‖ has been executed between the
opponents and the complainant. In the said ―Booking Agreement‖, amount of the said
flat as well as other charges such as Auda charges, Maintenance charges, and
Development charges in connection with unit were clearly mentioned. Moreover the
present opponents had also mentioned payment stages and service tax categorically
vide Annexure 6 in the said ―Booking Agreement‖ as per which the complainant had
to pay the consideration of the flat. The Xerox copy of the ―Booking Agreement‖
dated 20.03.2014 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A to this complaint.

3. After some time the complainant had requested to the opponents herein to cancel
the booked flat since he was not in a position to pay slab wise further payment on
time as per the conditions mentioned in the agreement on account of loss in business
due to sudden death of complainant‘s father and thereby he had request to the
opponents to return his money which was paid by him for booking of the said flat.
The opponents did not consider the request of the complainant but put forth a
proposal that they will sell it directly to the customer brought by the complainant after

Page |
163
completion of the customer‘s full payment towards the said flat, he will return the
booking amount i.e. Rs. 8,00,000/- back to the complainant. As the complainant left
with no alternative but to follow the proposal of the opponents, he brought another
customer to purchase the above said flat to the opponents. It is to note that new
customer had made full payment (as per the revised calculations) towards the said flat
to the opponents and after that, the opponents had sent a cheque of Rs. 6,23,917/- (in
words Six Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen Rupees) of Yes
Bank vide cheque no. 019739 dated 31.03.2018 thus the opponents had cut
Rs.1,76,083/- without giving any reason. The Xerox copy of the said cheque of Rs.
6,23,917 dated 31.03.2018 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B to this
complaint.

4. Immediately after the receipt of the above said cheque, the complainant had
inquired about the short of Rs. 1,76,083/- from the opponents. But the opponents had
sent one letter on 08.05.2018, wherein it was stated that ―This is to inform you that
Mr. Rahul Bajaj who had booked unit no. M-505 in our scheme ―Sorrel‖ in
Applewoods Township has gone for the cancellation of said unit. The applicable
service tax of Rs. 1,76,093/-( Rupees One Lac Seventy Six Thousand & Ninety Three
Only) on the said unit had been duly deposited by us vide challan enclosed herewith
and till date no refund/ credit has been claimed by us on cancellation of the said unit.
The amount paid to us by Mr. Rahul Bajaj has been duly refunded post deduction of
service tax.‖The above mentioned reply vide letter dated 08.05.2018 was contrary to
the ―Booking Agreement‖ as well as Ledger Account dated 27.02.2017 which was
provided to the complainant by the Opponents only. It is to note that the service tax
levied upon the each payment stage wise was clearly mentioned in the ledger account
balance and therefore the story of making full payment of service tax qua said flat in
advance by the opponents in the letter dated 08.05.2018 cannot be believed. It is also
to note that subsequent to the receipt of the your reply dated 08.05.2018 the
complainant had tried to get the satisfactory answer in relation to amount which was
wrongly deducted by the opponents, but the opponents had never replied satisfactorily
in that regards The copy of the Ledger Account dated 27.02.2017 is annexed hereto
and marked as Annexure-C to this complaint.

Page |
164
5. It is also to be submitted that the opponents had provided a challan to the
complainant to show that the full service tax has been paid by the opponents against
the above said flat of the complainant, but it was not revealing the same facts. On the
contrary the challan was showing transactions with respect to payment of service tax
of whole Applewoods Estate Private Ltd which was general in nature. The copy of the
Challan provided to the complainant is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure- D to
this complaint.

6. Thus the opponents had not provided any particular document which was specific
enough to show that the payment of service tax towards the said flat i.e. 505 had been
already made by the opponents herein in advance. It became apparent that the
opponents had wrongly cut the amount on the pretext of payment of full service tax
from the complainant, despite of the fact that the opponents had already received the
full payment in accordance with the revised calculation from the new customer which
included service tax and other charges.

7. It is also to be submitted that the opponents could have claimed for reverse the
entry of service tax from the service tax department, but they did not do so since no
full payment of service tax with respect to above said flat had been made by them. If
the booking agreement and ledger balance provided to the complainant be considered,
then also the service tax levied on the payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- would be
Rs.21,516/- as per the calculation to show how the service tax would be cut on stage
wise payment. Thus the remaining amount of Rs.778484, after deduction of the slab
wise service tax, ought to be return to the complainant. The opponents have made
unfair trade practice by pocketing the amount of Rs. 1,76,083/- on the pretext of
payment of full service tax with an oblique motive to usurp the money of the
complainant and therefore the complainant has sent a legal notice on 25.07.2018 to
the opponents through his advocate by the R.P.A.D. mode. It is also to be submitted
that the legal notice dated 25.07.2018 has been duly served to the opponents herein,
but no reply with respect to said legal notice has been given by the opponents herein
till today. Copies of the legal notice dated 25.07.2018 along with the R.P.A.D. slips
and delivery report are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-E (Collectively) to
this complaint.

Page |
165
8. That the opponents have pocketed the above said amount of Rs. 1,76,083
wrongfully by showing false grounds whereas he has received all the payment as well
other charges from the customer which was brought by the complainant to avail his
amount back as per the conditions. Further he had not given any reply of the legal
notice to the complainant and therefore the complainant is constrained to file present
consumer complaint.

9. The opponents have presented a story of payment of full service tax and thereby
wrongfully had cut the Rs. 1,76,083/- for their own benefits. Since the claim of the
complainant is below Rs. 25,00,000/- this Hon‘ble forum has pecuniary jurisdiction
to plead this matter.

10. The registered office of the opponents from where they are running their business
is in Bopal, Ahmedabad. Therefore this Hon‘ble court has territorial jurisdiction to
conduct this matter.

11. The complainant was in dire need of money due to financial loss in business and
therefore he sought cancellation of booked flat. The opponents should have returned
the money, but despite of returning it they had put forwarded conditions to bring
another customer and after completion of the full payment pertaining to the said flat
by the new customer, they had wrongly deducted the amount i.e. Rs. 1,76,083/- on the
pretext of full payment of service tax which is unfair trade practice. So in view of
the above fact and circumstances the complainant felt cheated and suffered huge loss
in business due to sending a cheque of less amount i.e. Rs. 6,23,917/- instead of the
amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- . Moreover the complainant has to pass through mental
torture and harassment due to unfair trade practice the opponents.

12. Therefore the complainant prays before this Hon‘ble Forum that:

(A) This Hon‘ble Forum may direct to the opponents herein to pay Rs. 1,76,083/-
back which was wrongly deducted by them at the 12% rate of interest jointly or
severally.

Page |
166
(B) This Hon‘ble forum may direct to the opponents herein Rs. 10,000/- as a
compensation for mental harassment and torture suffered by the complainant because
of unfair trade practice of the opponents.

(C) This Hon‘ble court may direct to the opponents to pay of Rs. 10,000/- as a coast
of this case.

Place: --------------------------------------
Date: (Advocate for the complainant)

AFFIDAVIT

I, Rahul Bajaj S/o, Girdharilal Bajaj, Aged: _ Years, Religion:

Hindu, Residing at: BE-166, Salt Lake City, Sector- I, Bidhan Nagar, North 24 PGS.,
Kolkata-700064, the applicant herein, do hereby state on oath and affirm that the
averments and statements made in the Paragraph No. to of the above said
complaint are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I believe same to be
true. Paragraph No.12 is a prayer clause.

Solemnly affirmed on this day of October, 2019 at Kolkata.

DEPONENT

Page |
167