2014 (12) TMI 1292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation dated March 25/28, 2013. By the said order, the plot in question is transferred in the name of respondent No.2 on the record of the GIDC with effect from 28.03.2013. 3. Mr.Kavina, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has contended that, the impugned order of the respondent Corporation is illegal and inconsistent with the record of the Corporation itself. In this regard, the details of the original allottees and the documents, on the basis of which the said transfer is accepted by the Corporation, are referred to on behalf of the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the various documents to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on, which in substance is the consequential order of the sale deed dated 04.03.2013, and on the face of the said sale deed dated 04.03.2013, the action of the Corporation can not be faulted with. Learned advocate for the respondent has further submitted that the Company viz., Supriya Prints Pvt. Ltd., had borrowed money from the Sutex Co-operative Bank Ltd., the repayment of which was in default and an arrangement was worked out between the parties inter-se to re-pay the said loan of the bank by the respondent No.2 and then the plot in question was to be transferred in the name of the respondent No.2. It is submitted that, the respondent No.2 has already discharged his obligation flowing from the said arrangement and thereafter when the que....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erial fact on the part of the petitioner. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, it is not the suppression of material fact but at the most a non-disclosure of a fact, which according to him is an independent aspect. There is a very thin line between suppression of material fact, and non-disclosure of a material fact. On conjoint reading of the pleadings of the petitioner in the civil suit in question and the present petition, this Court finds that, the impugned order passed by the respondent - Corporation is the consequence of the sale deed dated 04.03.2013 and both are inter woven aspects. For this reason the challenge to the sale deed is a material fact for the present petition. Once it is found that, challenge to the sale dee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... chain of the arrangement between the parties inter-se regarding repayment of loan to the Bank and subsequent transfer of the plot in favour of the person who repays the loan - which in the present case is respondent no.2. This is an additional factor against the petitioner. Those documents, on merits, tilts the balance against the petitioner. The petitioner disputes the authenticity thereof. Thus, the very foundation of this petition is the disputed question of facts, and those disputes are not attributable to the respondents but are at the instance of the petitioner himself. For this reason, the petitioner himself has disentitled him from getting any relief from this Court. 6.5 It is noted that, the petitioner has not been successful i....