९-१०-०७ को सिटी माम्लात्दर जवाब

SUBMISSIONS TO THE CITY MAMLATDAR IN THE MATTER OF 74/2007 RELATING TO CHADAVAD


From : Pankaj S Mody
2nd Floor Janmangal Apt
40 Brahman Mitra Mandal Society
Paldi, Ahmedabad 380 006
Email modyps@gmail.com
October 9 , 2007

To
City Mamlatdar,
Collector Office
Near Subhash Bridge
Ahmedabad

MADAM,
SUBJECT:- PENDING DISPUTE NO 74 OF 2007 BETWEEN PANKAJ MODY AND HAREKRIHSNA DEVELOPERS REGARDING PASSING OF ENTRY 5975 IN RECORD OF RIGHT 7/12 AS REGARDS TO FINAL PLOT 768/10 ADMEASURING 3065 SQMETERS AND LOCATED IN TP SCHEME 3/5 VARIED , CHADAVAD .
REFERENCE CORRESPONDENCE:- DATED 25/1/2006,6/2/2007, 20/4/2007 7/5/2007 , 16/5/07 and 30/5/07 to Talati/City Mamlatdar) and reply dated 13/2/2007 of Talati/Circle inspector taking note of Civil Suit 5827 of 2001)
====================================================================
Harekrishna Developers has furnished the following to Ms Meenaben Vyas ADVOCATE of Pankaj S Mody (present lawyers of Pankaj S Mody- the OBJECTOR) on 29-9-2007 being copies of documents submitted by them previously to Honorable City Mamlatdar:-
I. Copy of order dated 30-11-2006 in Civil Application 12472 of 2006(between Span Medicals Limited and Oriental Bank of Commerce)
II. Copy of Order of Bhadra City Civil Court dated 8-4-2003 and Exhibit 5 dated 31-12-2001 in Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 (being documents relating to Interim Stay).
III. Copy of affidavit dated 25-1-1995 made by Shri Suresh S Modi and Smt Nalini S Modi.
IV Written Opinion of A C Damani and Advocates dated 4-8-2007 to M/s Harekrishna Developers.
V The above four documents were annexed to the letter of M/s Harekrishna Developers addressed to City Mamlatdar dated 11-9-2007.
My REPLY as regards to above documents are stated as hereunder:-
I . Copy of order dated 30-11-2006 in Civil Application 12472 of 2006 in LPA 808 of 2006 (between Span Medicals Limited and Oriental Bank of Commerce) :-
1. Span Medicals Ltd had filed SCA 1333 of 2005 against Oriental Bank of Commerce in February 2005 to restrain the Bank from disposing Final Plot 768/10 (hereinafter referred was the disputed property) unknown to me . On 16-1-2006 an order was passed in said SCA 1333 of 2005 and the said order was challenged by Span Medicals Limited by filing OJ Appeal 808 of 2006 before Division Bench against Oriental Bank of Commerce. All these were unknown to me as I was not joined as a party. When I came to know of these matters, subsequently, I filed Civil Application 12472 of 2006 in OJ Appeal 808 of 2006 with a formal request to join as a party in the OJ Appeal 808 of 2006. My such application (to be joined) was declined by the Honorable Court vide Order dated 30-11-2006, copy of which document is above numbered FIRST document.
2. M/s Harekrishna Developers in the above letter dated 11-9-2007 to City Mamlatdar has in the paragraph 2 thereof wrongfully stated what is stated therein. My Civil Suit no. 5827 of 2001 in Bhadra City Civil Court is still pending Trial and which is between myself and six defendants, one of which is Span Medicals Ltd. Harekrishna Developers have not produced herein any Order from Bhadra City Civil Court and/or High Court that my said Civil Suit No 5827 of 2001 has been fully heard at its trial and disposed off and/or dismissed. In the said Civil Suit nO 5827 of 2001 , Span Medicals and Oriental Bank of Commerce are interalia defendants and I am the plaintiff and the suit is STILL PENDING SINCE 2001. Therefore, I have not lost the said Civil Suit No 5827 of 2001 interalia against Span Medicals Ltd, as is asserted by Harekrishna Developers.
3. IN FACT AND IN TRUTH, Harekrishna Developers have purchased the said disputed property with the knowledge of my Civil Suit No 5827 of 2001 subject to outcome of said Civil Suit 5827 of 2001. The said property's ownership is in dispute since 2001, if not from before. M/s Harekrishna Developers has hidden this aspect from the Honorable City Mamlatdar (of they having purchased the said disputed property in 2007 with the knowledge that the said Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 (pertaining thereto) is pending. To that extent, Harekrishna Developers' right as purchasers (if any, which is not admitted) is subject to outcome of said Civil Suit of 5927 of 2001.
4. Harekrishna Developers' open-eye purchase in 2007 of the said property with disputed ownership and with my Civil Suit No 5827 of 2001 (relating to the same) not having been disposed off at its trial(which will be in future) gives them a tainted right as such purchasers. . They are and should be fully aware of the same. Yet by making their application here by their said letter dated 11-9-2007 to your good self , they are attempting to mislead you into making a prejudicial entry (in land register) in face of my said Civil suit No 5827 of 2001. Their such conduct is highly deplorable, to say the least.
5. Alternatively , if your good self is disposed to making any such prejudicial entry or decision in face of my said Civil Suit No 5827 of 2001 then to protect myself ,yourself and your office, you should first demand and obtain from Harekrishna Developers suitable Monetary Bond or Financial Instrument to the extent of the present value of the said disputed property so as to satisfy the judgment of said Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 in the event , the same is decided in my favor, in future. Such Monetary Bond or Financial instrument should be issued by leading Nationalized Bank and to be issued in my and your favor pending outcome of my pending Civil Suit 5827 of 2001. I am prepared to accept such Monetary Bond or Financial Instrument subject to consent of Bhadra City Civil Court Trial judge in my said Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001.
II. Order dated 8-4-2003 and notice of motion under Exhibit 5 on 31-12-2001.
The Notice of Motion was mine applying for a stay order till the trial of the said Civil Suit 5827 of 2001. The Honorable Judge by his Order dated 8-4-2003 did not grant my such application. This, however, does not mean that my said Civil Suit No 5827 of 2001 has been disposed off and /or dismissed off. EVEN NOW, my said Civil Suit No 5827 of 2001 is STILL PENDING in the City Civil Court at Bhadra, Ahmedabad.

III. Affidavit filed by Shri Suresh S Modi and Smt Nalini S Modi on 25-1-1995 :- It has been stated in the said affidavit that Shri Suresh S. Modi and Smt. Nalini S. Modi were granted residence for life and they have vacated the bungalow (namely the aforesaid disputed property) and have relinquished their right of residence to Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited.
My reply on the above aspect are as hereunder:-
1. Shri Sureshbhai Modi and Smt Modi should have vacated the said property and handed over possession of the same simultaneously to Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd. This fact ought to have been recorded in the Minute Book Record of the said Limited company . The said affidavit does not show that they handed over their such possession to said Limited Company. This can only become evident upon inspection and perusal of minute book of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd which Harekrishna Developers ought to have produced.
2. The validity of the said affidavit dated 25-1-1995 is highly questionable and cannot be taken as final proof of the facts stated therein.
3. This affidavit has not been filed by my opponents (Span Medicals Ltd.) in my Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 as they well know that the facts of such said affidavit has no connection to the said Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001.
4. The production of the above highly questionable affidavit by Harekrishna Developers to you is, it is humbly submitted, is purely to mislead your good self , beside prejudicing me.
5. Further, Harekrishna Developers' failure to give all the above information (relating to the said affidavit) is deplorable and amounts to serious misconduct vis-à-vis unto yourself.

IV. Written Opinion of A C Damani and Advocates dated 4-8- 2007 to M/s Harekrishna Developers
HareKrishna have submitted their lawyers ( Mr. A.C Damani's) opinion( dated 4-8-2007 addressed to themselves) to your good self with their aforesaid letter dated 11-9-2007 with the nefarious intention of entering their names as such purchasers in the land registrar record.
My submissions on the above aspects are as follows:-
1. The above opinion of (Mr. A.C. Damani is mainly related to their matter with Municipal Corporation as is evident from paragraph 5 of the said opinion and is related to my another Civil Suit No 963 of 2007 interalia against HareKrishna Developers. The said opinion has NO EFFECT on the validity and/or viability of my previous Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 WHICH IS STILL PENDING SINCE 2001 and in which Harekrishna Developers are NOT a party. In the said Civil Suit No 5827 of 2001, Span Medicals Ltd. and Oriental Bank of Commerce are two of many such defendants. In my said second civil Suit No 963 of 2007, Harekrishna Developers is one of many defendants wherein Span Medicals Ltd. is not a party.
2. (a)The above opinion of Mr. A. C. Damani has no relevance in the present proceedings before your good self,(the City Mamlatdar). If, at all, your good self want to be guided by any legal opinion, then it is submitted that you should obtain legal opinion of Advocate General of Gujarat and not of any private lawyers' opinion and certainly not to be guided by such opinion of any lawyers of any parties appearing before you.

2.(b)I am given to understand by my lawyers and do verily believe that any Government Department and/or Civil Servants , whenever they require to obtain legal opinion in conduct of their duties, they have to obtain Advocate General's opinion or Ministry of Law's opinion and not be guided by private lawyer's opinion. In the instant case, the private lawyer (Mr. A C Damani) has not given any opinion to you at your request but has given such an opinion to their clients (Harekrishna Developers). Consequently, you should not take any notice of such an opinion which is one sided and biased in favor of M/s Harekrishna Developers and cannot be considered a neutral opinion.
3. (a) The above opinion of (Mr. A.C. Damani is mainly related to Harekrishna Developers' matter with Municipal Corporation as is evident from paragraph 5 of the said opinion and wherein my another Civil Suit No. 963 of 2007 interalia against HareKrishna Developers is referred to and commented upon.
3.(b) Mr. A C Damani being an advocate should know the difference between a trial judge and a motion judge (a judge hearing motion application). Yet for reasons known only to himself, he has misled his own clients (Harekrishna Developers) who in turn by producing Mr. A.C. Damani's said opinion is attempting to mislead you (albeit whether innocently or deliberately , only they can tell).
4.(a) Further I have not been silent relating to said Civil Suit No 5827 of 2001 as alleged by Mr. A C Damani in his aforesaid opinion. On an inspection of index of court record of said Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 that it can be ascertained and found that I have made an application therein which was heard and disposed in my favor in 2006 and I have been waiting for the said City Civil Court to frame the issues in the said Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001.
4.(b) I demand that Mr. A.C.Damani ,as an advocate do produce to your goodself requisite Order of City Civil Court at Bhadra stating that Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 has had a full trial and has been disposed off and/or dismissed prior to the purchase in 2007 by Harekrishna Developers of the said disputed property.
4(c) In fact, Mr. A.C. Damani as an Advocate fully knows that my Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 is still valid and extant (i.e . Alive) and pending Trial in Bhadra City Civil Court.
5. It is not known whether Mr. A.C. Damani (Advocate) were solicitors who did title search of the above property for Harekrishna Developers as purchasers before they bought the said disputed property.
6. It is also not known whether Mr. A.C. Damani made a note of the presence of my Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 and Notice of Lis Pendens pertaining to said disputed property registered with Sub-Registrar of Assurances , Paldi in 2004. (if he or his firm did title search of the said disputed property).
7. The said Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 is still pending in City Civil Court at Bhadra and the matter is SUBJUDICE. This fact is very well known to Mr. A.C.Damani as an Advocate, if If he or his firm made proper title search for Harekrishna Developers as proposed purchasers prior to any sale deed being executed by Span Medicals in their favour.
8. In the said opinion , Mr. A.C.Damani as an Advocate has interalia WRONGFULLY opined on my conduct (at paragraph 4 thereof ) when they do not know me nor I them . The said opinion has been made to prejudice myself not only with Harekrishna Developers but with any person to whom the said opinion is handed out or published. I have exercised my legal rights in commencing both the said Civil suits and my lawyers will explain to your goodself if necessary and if required by you, why one civil suit was filed in 2001 and another in 2007 relating to the same property (being aforesaid disputed property).
9. I am further advised by my lawyer and do verily believe that Harekrishna Developers ought not to have made public the said opinion of Mr. A.C. Damani, Advocate by handing the same to your good self (either original or a copy). Such handing over amounts to publication of the said opinion unto yourself and which amounts interalia to my defamation by Harekrishna Developers. I am taking further advice of my lawyers and will proceed accordingly hereafter.
10. (a) My other legal adviser has advised me on perusal of documents submitted by Span Medicals lt in the said City Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 (relating to the said disputed property) and have come to conclusion that even Span Medicals Ltd. did not obtain legal ownership of the said disputed property from its sellers. If Mr. A. C. Damani or his firm had made proper title search (of the said disputed property), they would have also come to same conclusion and would have advised their clients (Harekrishna Developers) NOT TO PROCEED with their purchase of said disputed property.
10(b) Yet, Harekrishna Developers proceeded with such tainted purchase. Now they want your goodself to register them as the legal owners of the said property by making suitable entry in the land records. Their such conduct is not only highly suspect but also amounts to grave misconduct vis-à-vis to your good self as well as myself it amounts to creating new proprietary rights through your good self when the said disputed property is subjudice as trial of my said Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 is still pending in the Bhadra City Civil Court wherein Harekrihsna Developers are not a party.
10 (c) Harekrishna Developers by their such application as per their letter dated 11-9-2007 to your good self is wrongfully attempting to persuade you to act in place of Bhadra City Civil Court by trying to obtain (through your goodself) proprietary rights which they have not obtained from Span Medicals Ltd. This I humbly submit, you should not do.
11. Whether title search by Mr. A C Damani or any other lawyers ( who made title search ) on behalf of Harekrishna Developers is correct and valid , only the courts can decide and not your goodself.
IN CONCLUSION , the aforesaid letter of Harekrishna Developers dated 11-9-2007 to your goodself and their aforestated four documents (handed to you) has been made with nefarious intentions and amounts to seriously prejudicing interalia your goodself. Further it amounts to seriously prejudicing my Civil Suit No. 5827 of 2001 wherein Harekrishna Developers are not a party.
It is unfortunate that your good self has informed Mr. Deepak Vyas , Advocate ( then appearing for Pankaj S Mody- the OBJECTOR) ON 3 RD October 2007 that you are not going to hold a hearing in this matter anymore and that you are only prepared to receive my written reply to Harekrishna Developers aforesaid documents submitted to you. My reply is contained in the preceding paragraphs of this letter. By your such assertions of not holding a hearing in this matter, you have unfortunately seriously prejudiced my right to be heard and on my behalf my lawyers to address you on various issues herein. Further, my rights to further proceed on appeal have been seriously impaired and prejudiced. All these amount to serious breaches interalia of rules of natural justice.
------------
PANKAJ S MODY
DATED:- 9TH OCTOBER 2007
Copy marked to 1) The Collector of Ahmedabad 2) The Revenue Secretary 3) The Chief Secretary 4) The Honorable Chief Minister of Gujarat ( in reference to the directions given to the Home Department to conduct impartial and detailed inquiry) 5) The Registrar, Bhadra City Civil Court