Moksha Jain (Drafting)

Integrated Five-Year B.A L.L.
B Programme
Batch: 2018-23
Academic Year: 2022-23
IL -505 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyance
SEMESTER IX
SUBMITTED BY:-
Name: - Moksha Jain
Roll No: - 73
1
Index
Unit: 1 Civil Drafting
Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.
1.1 Appeal from Order 6
1.2 Civil Revision Application 16
1.3 First Appeal 20
1.4 Civil application for stay 27
1.5 Specific Performance 30
1.6 Injunction Application in Suit 39
1.7 Interlocutory application 46
1.8 Permanent Injunction 48
1.9 Written Statement 53
2
Unit: 2 Criminal Drafting
Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.
2.1 Criminal Revision 59
2.2 Application U/S.125 OF CR. PC for grant of maintenance 63
2.3 Writ of Habeas Corpus 66
2.4 Special Leave Petition (SLP) 72
2.5 Application U/S. 437 OF CR. PC for grant of Bail 77
2.6 Application Under Section 438 OF CR. P. C. for 81

Anticipatory bail
2.7 Criminal Complaint 85
3
3 - CONVEYANCE DEEDS
SR.NO TITLE OF DRAFT PG.NO

1 TRUST DEED 93
2 LEASE DEED 97
3 ADOPTION DEED 109
4 GIFT DEED 113
5 AGREEMENT TO SALE 115
6 GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY 120
7 SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY 123
8 MORTGAGE DEED 125
4
4 - MISCELLANEOUS
SR.NO TITLE OF DRAFT PG.NO

1 NOTICE, STATUTORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 138 OF 129
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT 1881
2 CAVEAT APPLICATION 132
3 COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE 135
INSTRUMRNTS ACT 1881
4 CONSUMER COMPLAINT 139
5 MODEL ARBITRATION CLAUSE AGREEMENT 145
6 APPEAL BEFORE CONSUMER COMMISSION 148
7 WRIT OF MANDAMUS 155
5
Evaluation Committee
Dr. Vidhi Shah Mr. Darshan Pandya Dr. Foram Pandya
Dr. Mayuri H. Pandya
Director
GLS LAW COLLEGE
6
Unit: 1 Civil Drafting
APPEAL FROM 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. BariyaRukhibenShanabhai,
Female, Aged – 86 years,
Residing at Sangma Village,
KuvaVaruFaliyu,
Taluka: Padra,
District: Vadoddara
2. BariyaChanchalbenShanabhai,
W/o BhailabhaiMathurbhai,
Female,Aged: 81 years,
Residing at Tjpura,
Taluka: Padra, District: Vadodara
3. BariyaManibenShanabhai,
W/o RamsinghBhikhabhai,
Female, Aged: 71 years,
Residing at BangaliFariya,
Opposite Old Padra Bus Stand,
Padra, District: Vadodara.
4. BariyaJadabenShanabai,
W/o Ambalal JavabhaiParmar,
7
Female, Aged: 65 years,
Residing at Krushinagar,
Besides Rampark, ahead of Tulsidham,
Manjalpur,
Vadodara. … Appellants
(Original Plaintiffs)
Versus
1. Deceased RamjibhaiParshottambhai Patel,

Since Deceased through his legal heirs,
1/1 ParsottambhaiDharamshibhaiMoradiya (Pate),

Male, Aged-Adult,
1/2 ManjulabenRamjbhhaiMoradiya (Patel),
Male, Aged: Adult,
1/3 Amit RamjibhaiMoraddiya
Male, Aged: Adult,
1/4 SonalKetul Patel,
Female, Aged: Adult,
All residing at 1, Vasumahil Bungalows,

Vastrapur, Ahmedabad.
2. GhanshyambhaiPragjibhai Virani,
Male, Aged-Adult,
Residing at Hirana village,
Taluka: Lathi, District: Amreli.
3. BhupatbhaiParshotambhaiVithani,
8
Male, Aged-Adult,
Residing at Jadtala village,
Taluka: Gadhada,
District: Bhavnagar.
4. SavjibhaiJivrajbhaiItaliya,
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 abovenamed:
9
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
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 Appellantshad 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:
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 ShanabhaiLallubhaiBariya 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.
10
The Appellants state that one GunvatbhaiRanchhodbhai Patel and
RajubhaiVithalbhai 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 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.
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 LaxmanbhaiGadhvi 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
11
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.
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.
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.
12
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 Kabulatnamaallegedly made by the Appellants
herein under fraud, misrepresentation and coercion.
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 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.
13
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 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 encashed 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
14
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 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
15
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 BOUND FOREVER
PRAY.
Date: /10/2019
Place:Ahmedabad Advocates for the Appellant
16
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION

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,

Occu : Business,
Both are residing at :
Flat No.301, Nilkanth Complex,
Morarji Circle,
GIDC, Vapi,
Taluka : Vapi,
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:-
17
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:-
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.
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
18
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 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:
19
(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;
(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
20
FIRST APPEAL

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.
The humble petition of the petitioner above named:
21
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:
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.
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
22
No.399 of
23
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
24
the court grants the same. This categorically shows that the opponent claimed
maintenance as a wife and the Ld. Family Judge accepted the same.
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.
25
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 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
26
note that, when the Ld. Judge is not believing half of the story of present opponent, he
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 ;
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.
27
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
28
CIVILAPPLICATION FOR STAY
DISTRICT:AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. OF2019
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. OF2019
(FOR STAY)
Ranvirsinh Dilipsinh Rana

Sex: Male
Aged: Adult,
Residing at:
71, Shahibaug Society,
Asharwa,
Ahmedabad. ..Applicant
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
29
Honourable Judges of the High Court of
Gujarat, Sola at Ahmedabad.
.
The humble application of the applicant abovenamed:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
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 Applicant herein has preferred an First Appeal challenging the
same on the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal which may be
treated as part of this Civil Application.
2. The applicant has a good prima facie case and is likely to succeed in the appeal.
The balance of convenience is also in favour of the applicant and no irreparable
injury is likely to be caused to the respondents if the reliefs sought in this
application are granted. The Applicant states that if the relief sought for is not
granted, it will result in a situation wherein applicant will have to pay
compensation despite here being no fault on part of the applicant. The same would
cause irreparable injury to the Applicant. In the circumstances, the applicant
submits that it would be just, fair and in the interest of justice to grantthe reliefs
prayed for.
3. The applicant prays:
A) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal, the Hon’ble Court be
pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of 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 Applicant herein has preferred an First Appeal challenging the
same on the facts andgroundsmentionedinthememoofappealwhichmaybetreatedas
part of this CivilApplication.
30
B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal, the Hon’ble Court be
pleased to restrain the respondents or any person claiming through or under them
from filing any recovery application;
C) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of the prayer B above;
D) For such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case;
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND
FOR EVERY PRAY.
Date14/10/2019
Ahmedabad. Advocate for the Applicant
AFFIDAVIT
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
31
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,
Amraivadi,
Ahmedabad
32
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

Residing at:
6. Hasumatiben Anilkumar Natvarlal

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
33
executed by the plaintiffs with the predecessor of the defendants, namely Ramabhai
Chagganbhai Prajapati.
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
34
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
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.
35
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
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.
36
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
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.
37
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.
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.
38
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;
(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.
39
23. An affidavit in support of the aplication 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
40
Injunction Application in Suit
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AHMEDABAD (RURAL) AT AHMEDABAD
Plaintiffs : Ravin Ranchodbhai Patel and anr.
Versus
Defendant :Legal Heirs of Ramabhai Chagganbhai Prajapati
APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
The Applicants abovenamed 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.
41
3. 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.
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
42
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. 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
43
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
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
44
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 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.
45
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)
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
46
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AHMEDABAD (RURAL) AT AHMEDABAD
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
47
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,
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.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED:-
48
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.
49
Permanent Injunction
BEFORE THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE , AHMEDABAD (RURAL)
SUIT NO. OF 2019..
IN THE MATTER OF:
Peter James Mathew,

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
50
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
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
51
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 competent court
of law to seek his remedy and to get injunction order against the defendants and the
police station.
52
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.
(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:
53
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
54
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.
55
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
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.
56
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.
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
57
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.
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
58
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.
59
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
60
Unit: 2 Criminal Drafting
CRIMINAL REVISION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,
AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. OF 2019
Maheshkumar Nathubhai Patel,

Age: 24
Occupation : Business,
Residing at :
Juni Sheri,
Manekchawk,
Ahmedabad. ….Applicant
(Original Accused No. 1 )
Versus
1. State of Gujarat
(Notice to be served through

the Ld. Public Prosecutor
District Court, Ahmedabad)
2. Samratbhai Laljibhai Bharwad
Resident of
Barwad Vas,
Vadaj,
District : Ahmedabad …. Opponents
(No.2 is Original Complainant)
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.
61
The above named applicant humbly submits as under:
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. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
passed by the Court below 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
62
perused, it is urged that the applicant is 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 apprehendsthat 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.
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.
63
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 Odhav Police Station pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad.
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 : /10/2019
AFFIDAVIT
I, Maheshkumar Nathubhai Patel, Age 24, Hindu, Male, Occupation: Agriculturist, Residing
at 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 14th day of October 2019
Deponent
64
APPLICATION U/S.125 OF CR. PC FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GANDHINAGAR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1. Mrs. Valiben K. Patel,

R/o Gandhinager
2. Minor Sunny S/o Kantibhai Patel,
R/o Gandhinager Applicants
VERSUS
Kantibhai Amthabhai Patel
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 Applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent while Applicant
No. 2 is the legitimate son of the Respondent. Both the Complainants are residing
within the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court.
2. That Applicant No.1 was married to the Respondent according to the Hindu Rites and
ceremonies on 1/1/2017 - at New Ahmedabad and Applicant No. 2 was born out of
their wedlock on 1/9/2018. Applicant No. 2 is staying with Complainant No. 1 at
present.
65
3. That Applicant 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 Applicant
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 Applicant No. 1 became rude, cruel and oppressive, and
finally on 24/08/2019, the Respondent compelled Applicant No. 1 to leave the
matrimonial home along with Applicant No. 2, since then, the Applicants are staying
with father of applicant No. 1.
5. That the Applicant No.1 has made repeated attempts to join the Respondent in the
matrimonial home. However, the Respondent has refused to take back the Applicants
and has clearly informed Applicant 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 Applicants.
8. That Applicant No. 1 has no independent source of livelihood and as such is unable
to maintain herself. She is staying with her father at Gandhinagar and as such both the
Alpplicants are dependant upon him.
9. That Applicant No. 2 is a minor and is also staying with Applicant No. 1. He is
studying in Delhi Public School, and his monthly expenditure including school fees,
66
dresses etc. etc. is more than Rs. 50,000 Apart form this, Applicant No. 1 has also
kept a maidservant to properly look after Applicant No. 2 and is paying her Rs.
10,000per month which is presently being borne by her father.
10. That the applicants are residing at Gandhinagar. This Hon‟ble Court therefore is
competent to entertain and try this petition.
PRAYER
11.It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the orders for maintenance of
the Complainants be passed in favour of the Applicant 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.
Applicants
ADVOCATE
AFFIDAVIT
I,Valiben K. Patel, Age 35, Hindu, Female Residing at Gandhinagar do

hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under, that what is stated
in Para 1 to bare facts and the same to the best of my knowledge
is true and correct and I believe it to be true. Paragraph contains
prayer.
Solemnly affirm by me on this 14th day of October, 2019
Deponent
67
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2019
IN THE MATTER UNDER ARTICLE

14, 21, 22, AND 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
AND
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN ;
Kantibhai Amthabhai Patel,

Age 57, Male,
Occupation: Service,
Residing at:
D-407, Sarjan Towers,
Memnagar, Ahmedabad.
Versus
1. The State of Gujarat

Notice to be served through
Learned Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Gujarat
68
2. Police Inspector
Memnagar Police Station
Ahmedabad City,
Ahmedabad
3. Laxmanji Bhavanji Pitroda,

Age: Adult, Hindu, Male,
Residing at
A-405, Mahavir Avenue,
Naranpura,
Ahmedabad. …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 Kamini Patel (herein after
referred as Corpus for sake of brevity) went missing since 12.8.2019.
69
3. The petitioner states that the corpus used to do marketing job and also used to do
Allient classes from S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad. The corpus used to do marketing job
pertaining to website making regularly. On 12.8.2019 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 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. 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 Memnagar Police Station and filed
a missing complaint of his daughter i.e. the corpus herein on 13.8.2019 at around
12:30 a.m. A copy of the complaint-dated 13.8.2019 registered with Memnagar 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
70
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 13.8.2019 the corpus
sent a document on whats App 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 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 whats App 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.
71
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 talk with 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
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 herself 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:
72
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.
Date: 14.10.2019
Place: Ahmedabad
Advocate for Petitioner
AFFIDAVIT
I, Kantibhai Amthabhai Patel,Age 57, Hindu, Male, residing at address given at title clause of
this petition, 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.
Deponent
73
Special Leave Petition (SLP)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICATION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No. OF 2019
(FROM THE FINAL JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.08.2019 PASSED BY THE
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 305 OF
2013)
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Age 57, Male,
Residing at:
Memnagar, Ahmedabad. … PETITIONER/ORIGINAL

ACCUSED
VERSUS
1. Union Territory of Chandigarh
through Home Secretary,
New Delhi. RESPONDENT
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE
136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
To,
The Hon‟ble Chief Justice of India
74
And his Companion Justices of
The Supreme Court of India
At New Delhi.
The humble petition of the
Above named petitioner
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1. That the present Special leave Petition (Criminal.) is filed against order dated
26.08.2019 of the High Court of Gujarat, in Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2013, titled
“Kantibhai Patel, versus The State of Gujarat” 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, was committed in the kitchen of his house
when Shri Devinder Singh Brar and his sister Smt. Gurmail Kaur were in Bharuch,
Gujarat. The F.I.R. was registered on by one Praffulbhai, who PW-11 who resides in the
neighbourhood of house. The offence came into light when Smt. Babita the sweeper of
House No. 52 informed the complainant that on 11.2.2013 and again on 13.2.2013. Smt.
Babita informed the complainant. On the information given by complainant S.I. Puran
Chand aforesaid recorded D.D.R. No. 46 dated 13.2.2013 in the Rojnamcha of the police-
Station, and formed a Police party and the came to the House of incident. 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.
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
75
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 framed against them and claimed trial. The Court of Session Judge,
Ahmedabad 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, Ahmedabad
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
76
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, Ahmedabad 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 26.11.2015 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India.
77
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
dated26.08.2019 of the High Court of Gujarat, in Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2013,
titled “Kantibhai Patel versus The State of Gujarat”
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, Kantibhai Patel, Aged Adult, Hindu, Male, address given at the title clause of present
petition, 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.
78
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

Age 57, Male,
Residing at:
Memnagar, Ahmedabad. …
Applicants
Versus
State of Gujarat
The Public Prosecutor,
At Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ahmedabad … Respondent
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:
79
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.
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
80
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:
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
81
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. Affidavit may be dispensed with as the applicant is in judicial custody.
C. 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 (Advocate for the applicant)
82
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 : Kantibhai Amthabhai Patel,

Age 57, Male,
Residing at:
Memnagar, Ahmedabad.
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
83
Kankeshwari Temple Trust. The applicant states that one Mr. Prabhubhai
Govindbhai Oza has already filed one private complaint vide Criminal Inquiry
Case No. 6/2019 in the Court of J.M.F.C. at Visavadar on 19/09/2019 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.
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.15/2018 before this Honourable Court and it was granted on
31.12.2018 in connection with the Criminal Inquiry Case No. 6/2018 which came
to be registered as M. Case No. 3/2019 in Visavadar Police Station. However, the
84
applicant was not arrested within ninety days from the date of order, the applicant
preferred another application for anticipatory bail on 28.03.2018 vide Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 53/2018. At the time of hearing of the later
application, it was found that the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application 53/2018, is not limited and the applicant is protected till his arrest is
made. Hence, it was withdrawn with that endorsement.
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. 53
of 2018. 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:
85
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
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 : /10/2019
86
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,
Shahibag, Ahmedabad 380 004
87
2. Sarabhai Foundation
A Public Charitable Trust
Having its Office at:
The Retreat,
2/1. Gira Sarabhai

The Retreat,
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
88
C/o. Sarabhai Foundation
Having its Office at: The Retreat,
Shahibag, Ahmedabad 380 004. … Accused
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
5. Sculpture: ‘Shiv-Parvati’, Bronze
89
6. Sculpture: ‘Dancing Balkrishna’, Bronze
7. Sculpture: ‘Nataraj’, Bronze
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
90
9. 2 Nos. Stools –(bajot)
10. 1 Nos. Ladle –(doyo)
Other Assets:
7.16% of undivided share in ornaments, silver and silver utensils.
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

26. Sculpture: ‘Ganesh’, 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
91
33. Sculpture: Standing male figure, Bronze
34. Sculpture: ‘Shiv’, Bronze
35. Sculpture: ‘Matangi’ (?), Bronze
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
92
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
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
93
company including the assets transferred to complainant no.2 vide Board Resolution
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
94
Unit 3
CONVEYANCE DEED
DEED OF TRUST
DEED OF TRUST OF
ESTATE OF SHIBANI AND SONU THAKOR PRIVATE TRUST
This Deed of Trust made on this 14th day of October 2019 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. Niranjan
Bhagat from his mother Mrs. Kamini Bhagat through Will made by Mrs. Toral
Bhagat. Mr. Niranjan Bhagat passed away on 22.10.2006. Pursuant thereto, in
accordance with the Will made by Mr. Niranjan Bhagat, Mrs. Kamini Bhagat
i.e. wife of Mr. Niranjan Bhagat, inherited the above-mentioned immovable
property. Mrs. Toral Bhagat passed away on 09.07.2015. During her lifetime,
Mrs. Toral Bhagat 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 VaikunthbhaiDiwanji
Residing at D/404, Neelambar
VasnaBhaili Road, Vadodara 391410.
Under the authority vested in them by the Will made by Late Smt. Toral
Bhagat, the above mentioned Executors have sold the above mentioned
95
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. Toral Bhagat 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. Toral Bhagat 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 Toral and Kamini Bhagat.
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 Toral and Niranjan Bhagat Private
Trust”.
(2) Trustees :
There shall be two Trustees. The following shall be the Trustees:
1. Mr. Mihir Anilbhai Lakhia
Residing at 27, Pritamnagar,
Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.
96
2. Mr. Shirish VaikunthbhaiDiwanji
Residing at D/404, Neelambar
VasnaBhayli 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
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 VaikunthbhaiDiwanji, his son Mr. Hardik ShirishbhaiDiwanji,
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.
(7) Bank Account :
The bank account of the Trust is presently held with the NutanNagrikSahakari
Bank Ltd., Kalupur,Branch. If required, a bank account may be opened with
any other bank by the Trustees.
(8) Purposes :
97
The funds shall be utilized for educational purposes, medical aid for the
beneficiaries, donations to old age homes, etc. as desired by Mrs. Toral
Bhagat.
(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. Karn Bhagat
2. Vishal Bhagat
3. Ragini, wife of Vishal Bhagat
4. Alpesh Bhagat
5. Chameli, wife of Alpesh Bhagat
6. MadhviBhide
7. Kaushik Bhide
8. Kairav Bhagat (unmarried)
9. Maithili Bhagat (unmarried)
10. Rajesh Bhagat (unmarried)
98
DEED OF LEASE
This Deed of Lease is executed on this 24, Day of august, 2019at Ahmedabad.
BETWEEN
Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya,
aged about 46 years,
Occupation – Business,
Residing at Survey No. 54/1, Beside Mahavir 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, BhimjibhaiKavathiya,
aged about 34 years,
Residing at 41, Valkeshwar Apartment, 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 MoujeVejalpur, Taluka Vejalpur, in the
Registration District Ahmedabad, Sub-District Ahmedabad-10 (Vejalpur),
including the right of ingress and egress and other residual rights, admeasuring
99
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 OnetenKathiyawadi 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.
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 :-
100
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. 115
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, Ahmedabad, lying and situated on the N.A. Land of
Survey No. 1274, T.P.S. No.3 (Vejalpur), Final Plot No.198 of
MoujeVejalpur, 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.
101
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. 116
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 35KVA load 3

phase for the Lessee’s usage.
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
102
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. 117
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 ofRs.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
103
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.
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:
104
(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.
(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
105
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.
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.
106
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) month’s 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) month’s 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 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
107
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.
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
108
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
Aurumon which Shop No. 1 on the Ground Floor admeasuring about
73.58sq.mts. at Dev Aurum Showroom and 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
Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya 123
Signed and delivered
By the within named
109
Shree oneten
BhimjibhaiKavathiya
IN THE PRESENCE OF :
NAME :
ADDRESS :
NAME :
ADDRESS
DEED OF ADOPTION
110
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
Occupation – Private Practitioner
Hindu by Religion,
Having address at
36, Krishna Society,
Near Lal darwaja
Ahmedabad ,Gujarat.… Party of the Second part
AND
Shri Deep Nareshbhai Shah
111
Hindu by Religion,
Having address at
1, Saraswati Chandra Society,
Maninagar,Ahmedabad . … Party of the Third Part
Smt. Manshi Deep Shah
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
112
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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have placed their respective

hands on this the 26 day of May 2018.
113
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 :
114
GIFT DEED
THIS DEED OF GIFT is made on 14th October, 2019 at Ahmedabad.
BETWEEN
Mr. MaehsbhaiNathubhai Baraiya,
aged about adult,
residing at 36, LaxmikrupaSociety,Odhav, Ahmedabad
( hereinafter called "Donor-Party of the First Part).
AND
Mr. Kamlesh B. Jaiswal,
aged about adult,
residing at 36, Laxmikrupa 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 Jainil Mahesh Baraiaya
residing at 36,Lakshmi Krupa 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
115
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.
SIGNED, SEALED & In the presence of:-
DELIVERED BY the
Within named "Party
hereto of the First Part
i.e. the Donor.
Kamlesh B. Jaiswal
SIGNED, SEALED &
DELIVERED BY the
within named "Party
hereto of the Second Part
i.e. the Donee.
Mahesh Baraiya
116
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 MoujeVejalpur, Taluka
City, within the Registration Sub-District and District Ahmedabad-4(Paldi).
The Party of the 1. Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya
First Part:- 2. Kamini Mahesh Baraiya
Both adult, Occupation House-hold/Service-Business, Hindu

by Religion, Both Residing at B.160, Park Avenue Apartment,
B/h. Sola Bhagwat, Sola, Ahmedabad.
.....hereinafter referred to as the "Party of the First Part", which

expression shall mean and include the said Mahesh Nathubhai
Baraiya and Kamini Mahesh Baraiya and his/her/their heirs,
executors, transferees, assignees administrators, attorney is etc.
The Party of the ShakrabhaiBhimjibhaiRabari
Second Part:- aged about 43 years, Occupation Service, Residing at

B./204, Veer 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
Shakrabhai and his heirs, executors, transferees,
assignees administrators, attorney is 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 MoujeVejalpur, Taluka City, within the
Registration Sub-District and District Ahmedabad-4(Paldi). That the Land
117
Owner DarshanbhaiVinodbhaiKavathiya has constructed Flats in the scheme
known as "Park Avenue Flats".
The Party of the First Part are the members of the said Park Avenue Flats and
Park Avenue Flats has allotted Flat No. A/20 on the Second Floor in the said
Park Avenue Flats. The construction of the said flat is 73.58 Sq.Mtrs. and
29.61Sq. Mtrs. undivided share in the land of Park Avenue 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/20 by the
Owner of the said Land and Developers DarshanbhaiVinodbhai 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/20 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 Cheque No. & Date Name of the Bank

(Rs.)
1,87,500/- 188977 Axis Bank, Vastrapur
Dt.25.2.17 Branch, Ahmedabad.


118
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 upto 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
Institutionand there is no litigation pending in any Court or there is no stay of
attachment against the said property.
119
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 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/20,Second Floor of Park Avenue 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 MoujeVejalpur, 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.
97
North:- Flat No.A/21
South:- Sub Station of Auda.
120
Party of the First Part. Witness
Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya
Kamini Mahesh Baraiya
Party of the Second Part. Witness
ShakrabhaiBhimjibhaiRabari
121
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, We, (1)

Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya, aged about 36 years, Occupation Service, Hindu
by Religion and (2) Kamini Mahesh Baraiya, aged about 34 years, Occupation
Service, Hindu by Religion, both Residing at B-7, Kayakalp 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 Mahesh NathubhaiBaraiya:-
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:-
All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Room No.166, 4th
Floor, Building No.15/F, HalaiLohana Niwas, now under HBS Sea View
Pvt.Ltd., Shankar Bali Lane, Chira Bazar, Mumbai.400,002.
Property to be purchased in the name of BhimjibhaiKanubhaiShah:-
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:-
All that piece and 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 friend Chauhan

Bhagirath Rameshbhai, aged about 40 years, Occupation:Service. Hindu by
Religion and (2) Chauhan Reenaben Bhagirath, aged about 38 years,
Occupation Housewife, Both Residing at B-7, Kayakalp Row House-2,
122
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.
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.
123
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.
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 14th day of October, 2019;
Donner PHOTO
Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya
Kamini Mahesh Baraiya
We accept Donee:
Chauhan Bhagirath Rameshbhai
Chauhan Reenaben Bhagirath
124
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, I Mahesh

NathubhaiBaraiaya, adult, Hindu by Religion, Occupation Service, Residing at
202, Bageshree 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
hereinunder, before the Hon. City Civil Court, Small Causes Court, Board of
Nominees Court, Gujarat state Co.op. 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 MoujePaldi, 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 Mehul Sharad Shah

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.
125
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.
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, every thing 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 14th day of October, 2019;
Donor
Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya,
Mehul Sharad Shah
126
MORTGAGE DEED
Memorandum of Equitable Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deed.
THIS Memorandum of Agreement made by us (1) Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya,

aged about 46 years, Occupation Service and (2) Kamesh Nathubhai Baraiya,
aged about 47 years, Occupation Business, both Residing at 36, Mahadev
Society, Maninagar, Ahmedabad-( herein-after described in this Mortgage
Deed as ("Mortgagors") on this_14th day of October, 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) Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya, aged
about 50 years, Occupation Service and (2) Kamesh Nathubhai Baraiya, aged
about 60 years, Occupation Business, both Residing at 36, Mahadev 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) Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya, aged
about 46 years, Occupation Service and (2) Kamesh Nathubhai Baraiya, aged
127
about 47 years, Occupation Business, both Residing at 36, Mahadev Society,
Maninagar, Ahmedabad, 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) Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya and(2) Kamesh Nathubhai Baraiya
1. Original Allotment Letter dt.10.5.2001 issued by
LaxmikrupaCo.op.Housing Society Ltd. in the names of
TusharbhaiRameshbhai Desai and Radhika Tushar Desai.
2. Original Certificate dtd.13.12.01 issued by LaxmikrupaCo.op.Housing
Society Ltd. in the names of TusharbhaiRameshbhai Desai and Radhika
Tushar Desai handing over possession of Flat No.C/22 of Yash Tower.
3. Original Share Certificate No.71 for share No.400 to 405 dtd.7.12.2001
issued by LaxmikrupaCo.op.Housing Society Ltd. duly transferred in the
names of TusharbhaiRameshbhai Desai and Radhika Tushar Desai by Transfer
No.9 dt.31.12.03.
128
4. Original Sale Deed executed by PurshotambhaiKarsanbhaiDafda in favour
of TusharbhaiRameshbhai Desai and Radhika Tushar Desai which is
registered before Sub Registrar, Ahmedabad-4(Paldi) under Sr.No.3993/2003
on dtd.27.11.2003.
105
5. Original Sale Deed executed by TusharbhaiRameshbhai Desai and Radhika
Tushar Desai in favour of (1) Harshit SiddharthbhaiKavathiya and (2)
Siddharth BhailalbhaiKavathiya 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 KAVATHIYA AND SIDDHARTH BHAILALBHAI
KAVATHIYA:
ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL of constructed property bearing Flat
No.C/22, 2nd Floor of LaxmikrupaCo.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 MoujeVejalpur, 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,FlatNo.C/23;
North:- Flat No.C/21;
South:- Temple;
Muni.Tenament No.0625-15-3305-0001-H.
Torent Power Ltd. Service No.3133488;
129
In witness whereof the above named have affixed our signatures on 14th day
of October, 2019 above written at Ahmedabad.
1 2
Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya Kamesh Nathubhai Baraiya
In the presence of the
following Witnesses:-
130
UNIT 4
MISCELLANEOUS
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.
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
131
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 Rs94,819/-
Bank
763344 15/9/2010 Indian Overseas Rs. 79,800/-
Bank
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 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
132
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
133
CAVEAT APPLICATION
Before TheHon'Ble Judicial Magistrate Civil Court At Unja
Caveat Application No. Of 2016
RabariNagjibhaiChehorbhai
4/135, Moto Rabarivas, Village Upera,
Ta. Unja, DistrtictMahesana.
CAVETOR…
Versus
RabariDevabhaiVaravabhai
Moto Rabarivas, Village Upera,
Ta. Unja, DistrtictMahesana.
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, DistrtictMahesana, where the present caveator/applicant
renovating his home for his own living.
134
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 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 RabariNagjibhaiChehorbhai ,Residing at 4/135, Moto Rabarivas,

Village Upera, Ta. Unja, DistrtictMahesana., 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
Before TheHon'Ble Judicial Magistrate Civil Court At Unja
135
Caveat Application No. Of 2016
RabariNagjibhaiChehorbhai
CAVETOR…
Versus
RabariDevabhaiVaravabhai
OPPONENT…
Affidavit
I RabariNagjibhaiChehorbhai , Religion Hindu, Age 68 years Residing

at 4/135, Moto Rabarivas, Village Upera, Ta. Unja, DistrtictMahesana.,, 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
136
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881
BEFORE THE HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, AT

AHMEDABAD
COMPLAINT NO. OF 2019
( Under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 )
R H S Holidays,
Through its properitor,
Pankaj S.Gupta
having its office at:
Banker House near Golden Triangle,
Stadium Road,
Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad. ........................................................................................................ Complainant
Versus
Mr. Jitendra Agrawal,
B-801, Chinmay Crystal,
Opp. Vastrapur Lake,
Vastrapur,
Ahmedabad-380 015 .................................................................................................. Accused
TO.,
THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
AND OTHER COMPANION MATROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
AHMEDABAD.
1.. That the complainant is in the business of Hotel booking, Air tickets, Car
Rentals etc and the accused is dealing in the business of steel and is having
friendly relation with the complainant and known to the complainant since
more then 10 years. The complainant has booked many tours and tickets for
the accused and his family in the past and is having cardinal relation with the
accused.
137
2.. That on 20/01/2013, accused approached Mr. Pankaj proprietor of RHS
Holidays and requested him for an amount of rs. 2,73,892/- as he wanted to
buy dollars as his son was going abroad for studies and the accused assured
complainant that same amount will be returned back to the complainant within
a week.
3.. That on considering long business transaction and personal friendly terms
and on oral assurance given by accused to the complainant, complainant had
given a cheque of self on 22/01/2013 for the amount of Rs.2,73,892/- and on
the basis of same cheque a Demand Draft of the same amount was given to
accused for the purpose of buying foreign currency for the son of accused.
4.. That the accused has assured the complainant that the same amount will be
returned to him within a week and accused had also given a cheque dated
24/01/2013 of DCB Bank, Relief Road, Ahmedabad branch. The complainant
relying upon words and promise of the accused and presented the said cheque
in his ICICI Bank, CG Road Branch but vide intimation dated 29/01/2013, the
complainant was informed that the cheque could not be cleared because of
insufficient funds in the account of accused and the same was communicated
to the accused.
5.. Thereafter, complainant got an assurance from the accused to re-deposit the
cheque and this time the cheque will be cleared, therefore, the complainant
once again deposited the above cheque on 26/02/2013 but the said cheque
could not be cleared because of insufficient funds in the account of accused,
which is maintained with DCB Bank, Relief Road, Ahmedabad.
6.. Then after the complainant had tried to contact accused several times and
every time false assurance was given that he will pay the debt amount, but he
never paid the legal and payable debt to the complainant and therefore, on
12/03/2013 the complainant has sent notice for the said cheque through his
advocate U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act upon the accused by R.P.A.D
calling upon the accused to make good the payment of the amount referred in
the cheques within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The copy of said
notice was also sent another address which is 5, Nutan Society, opp. Mahadev
Temple, Paldi, Ahmedabad and the said notice from the both the address were
returned to the advocate with an endorsement that “ unclaimed returned” and
from 2nd address, it returned with a memo that “ no person of that name is
138
staying there.” It is required to be noted that the accused is staying at the given
address only and has wilfully avoided the service of statutory notice under
Section 138 of N.I. Act and, therefore, the same should be treated as properly
and duly served on accused. The Original cheque and the original memo of
cheque returned and the notice sent and returned with an endoresement of
postal department for the same are hereby annexed and marked as Annexure-B
Colly.
7.. The aforesaid notice was issued in the prescribed time limit. That the notice
sent by the complainant was wilfully avoided and, therefore, the same should
be treated as duly served upon the accused and, therefore, the accused has
committed offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and therefore the accused deserves to be held guilty and punished U/s
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
8.. Since, the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court and the offence has taken place within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try this complaint.
9.. The complainant craves leave to add, amend, vary, rescind, modify any of
the above mentioned ground/ averments made in the aforesaid complaint.
10..Therefore, the complainant prays that

(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit this Complaint and kindly order
the required process to be issued against the Accused to meet the end of justice
as quickly as possible;
(B) The Accused should be punished for the maximum period as provided
under Sec.138 of N. I. Act and also be ordered to pay the fine of maximum
amount that can be imposed on the Accused by Hon’ble Court as provided
under the Act;
(C) Any other relief which is expedient in the interest of justice be also
awarded.
Verified by me on this 14TH day of October, 2019, at Ahmedabad.
Place: AHMEDABAD. …………………………

Date:14/10/2019 COMPLAINANT
139
VERIFICATION
I Mr. Pankaj S. Gupta, Age 44 years, Residing at address given as above to the
complaint, 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
140
CONSUMER COMPLAINT
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM AT:
AHMEDABAD
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.
141
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
142
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.
143
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.
144
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.
(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.
145
(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
146
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 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
147
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. Moreover, a draft of the Lease Agreement sent by
the claimant to the opponent for approval on 16.12.2008 mentioned the rate of
148
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.
149
APPEAL BEFORE CONSUMER COMMISSION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

GUJARAT STATE COMMISSION
AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL NO. OF 2019.
( Appeal Preferred against Order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District )
Kataria Car Ltd..
Ground Floor,
S. G. Road,
Makarba,
Ahmedabad. ....... Appellant
Versus
1. NimeshKavathiya
Sun Step Raw House,
Gurukul
Ahmedabad.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Zodiac Square, 3rd Floor,
Off No. 7 to 9,
Opp. Gurudwara,
S. G. Road, Bodakdev,
Ahmedabad. ...... Respondents
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
125
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 30.09.2018 passed
by the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District, in
150
Complaint No.425/2018. 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 :
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-
KF-7328 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. 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.
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
126
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad. A copy of the complaint is
produced at Annexure B.
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
151
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.
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 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’.
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 30.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
152
Ahmedabad Rural in Complaint No. 425 of 2018, the appellant has preferred
this Appeal on the following amongst other grounds :
GROUNDS
(A) 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.
(B) The impugned judgment is against the settled legal position and therefore
the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(C) 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.
(D) 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.
(E) 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.
(F) 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.
153
(G) 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 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.
(H) 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.
(I) 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.
(J) 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.
(K) 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
154
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.
(L) 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.
(M) 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.
(N) The impugned order has been passed without due application of mind and
without considering the provisions of law.
(O) 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 30.09.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District, in Complaint No. 402 of
2018;
(C) The Hon’ble Commission be pleased to stay the execution and
implementation of the impugned order dated 30.09.2018 passed by the
Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District, in
155
Complaint No. 425 of 2018, 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
Kataria Cars Pvt. Ltd.
131
Through Authorized Signatory
VERIFICATION
I, Kalpesh Shah Authorized Signatory of KatariaPvt.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.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Kalpesh Shah Authorized Signatory of KatariaPvt.Ltd of MajdurCarz. 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 14th day of October 2019 at Ahmedabad.
156
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:
UmangRakeshbhaiKoisa
Male, Age: 65 years, Occupation: Business,
Residing at: 5423 Twin Creeks Dr,
Valricoflorida
Usa-33594
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
157
The Secretary
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
ShastriBhavan, New Delhi
2. The Registrar of Companies
ROC Bhavan,
Opp. Rupal Park Sociaty,
Bh. Ankur Bus Stand,
Naranpura, Ahmedabad
...Respondents
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").
158
2. 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.
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
159
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.
6. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as under:-
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 has a right to enforce their fundamental
rights as enshrined under the Constitution of India.
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.
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
160
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"
The Petitioner respectfully submit that the objects of the company were to
Software publishing, consultancy and supply Software publishing includes
production, supply and documentation of ready-made (non-customized)
software, operating systems software, business & other applications software,
computer games software for all platforms.
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.
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.
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.
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".
161
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 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".
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.
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
162
(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.”
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 167 reads 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:
163
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.
(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).”
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.
Even otherwise, no due notice was served to the company’s registered address
highlighting the defaults.
164
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.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above facts and circumstances,
the petitioner has the petitioners herein beg to challenge the present
application on the following amongst other grounds;
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.
(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
165
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.
(G) 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.
(H) 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.
(I) 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
166
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.
(J) 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.
(K) 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.
(L) 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 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.
(M) 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.
(N) 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.
167
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The Petitioner crave leave to add, amend, alter or rescind the memo of
petition, if and when found necessary.
14. 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:
168
(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.
C) 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.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL ALWAYS

PRAY FOR.
Place: Ahmedabad.
Date: 14/10/2019 (Advocate for the Petitioner)
AFFIDAVIT
I,UmangRakeshbhaiKoisa, S/O- RakeshbhaiKoisa, 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.
169
Deponent
Identified by me
Advocate
170

Moksha Jain (Drafting)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moksha Jain (Drafting)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrated Five-Year B.A L.L.

Academic Year: 2022-23

IL -505 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyance

Name: - Moksha Jain

Unit: 1 Civil Drafting

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

1.1 Appeal from Order 6

1.2 Civil Revision Application 16

1.3 First Appeal 20

1.4 Civil application for stay 27

1.5 Specific Performance 30

1.6 Injunction Application in Suit 39

1.7 Interlocutory application 46

1.8 Permanent Injunction 48

1.9 Written Statement 53

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

2.1 Criminal Revision 59

2.2 Application U/S.125 OF CR. PC for grant of maintenance 63

2.3 Writ of Habeas Corpus 66

2.4 Special Leave Petition (SLP) 72

2.5 Application U/S. 437 OF CR. PC for grant of Bail 77

2.6 Application Under Section 438 OF CR. P. C. for 81

2.7 Criminal Complaint 85

SR.NO TITLE OF DRAFT PG.NO

SR.NO TITLE OF DRAFT PG.NO

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

Dr. Mayuri H. Pandya

APPEAL FROM ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

APPEAL FROM ORDER No. OF 2019

1. Deceased RamjibhaiParshottambhai Patel,

1/1 ParsottambhaiDharamshibhaiMoradiya (Pate),

All residing at 1, Vasumahil Bungalows,

5. M/s. Sahjanand Corporation,

The Appellant abovenamed:

Subsequently, the afore-stated persons executed a registered sale deed dated

Subsequently, the Appellants herein filed a complaint against the Respondents

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

the grounds aforesaid at the time of the hearing.

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

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT

ABOVENAMED SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND FOREVER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO OF 2019

Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of

2. Makbul Valiulla Shaikh,

Mohmmedvakil Mohmmedchhedi Chaudhry,

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

6. The applicant, therefore, humbly prays that:

I, Danish Alim Shaikh, the applicant herein, do hereby state on solemn

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

Ranvirsinh Dilipsinh Rana

The humble petition of the petitioner above named:

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

2.3 Subsequently, the respondent herein preferred one Hindu Marriage

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

a. Admit the present appeal;

Affidavit of the Appellant

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. OF2019

FIRST APPEAL NO. OF2019

Ranvirsinh Dilipsinh Rana