सिटी माम्लात्दर का जवाब २२-२-०८ स्वागत स्कीम प्रश्न ४७ , ४८

ग्रिएवांस लैटर दतेद ५-२-०८ -स्वागत स्कीम -कलेक्टर ऑफिस

ENCLOSURE:-

COPY OF LETTER DATED 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 SENT TO SWAGAT SCHEME OF COLLECTOR ( REGISTERED VIDE REFERENCE NO 6932) AND REFERRED AS QUESTION 47 IN THE LETTER DATED 7TH FEBREUARY 2008


BY HAND DELIVERY AS WELL AS BY EMAIL

SOS MOST URGENT MESSAGE FOR PERSONAL ATTENTION OF THE COLLECTOR OF AHMEDABAD

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL ( CONTENTS OF THE PRESENT LETTER NOT TO BE DISCLOSED TO CITY MAMLATDAR AND ITS OFFICE) FOR PERSONAL SAFETY


From :- Pankaj S Mody
2nd Floor, Janmangal Apt
40 Brahman mitra mandal soc
Paldi, ahmedabad 380 006
Email modyps@gmail.com

Mobile 94270-26109

The Collector of Ahmedabad,
COLLECTOR OFFICE ,
SHUBHASH BRIDGE
AHMEDABAD

Respected Sir,

GRIEVANCE UNDER SWAGAT SCHEME

SUBJECT:- GRIEVANCE AGAINST CITY MAMLATDAR PASSING ORDERS IN TAKRARI NODH 74/07 IN HOT HURRY FOR APPROVING ENTRY 5975 ( FINAL PLOT 768/10 ADMEASURING 3065 SQMETERS IN TP SCHEME 3/5 , CHADAVAD) AND URGENT NEED TO PUT STAY ORDER AGAINST HAREKRISHNA DEVELOPERS,ETC WHILE ATTACHING AND SEALING THE PROPERTY ( FINAL PENDING FURTHER INVESTIGATION).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
१.This is in reference to the announcement made in newspaper to accept complaints/grievances under SWAGAT scheme and the same has to be filed on 5th February 2008.




२.My grievance is against the City Mamlatdar who has passed orders in takrari nodh 74/07 (for approving disputed entry 5975 pertaining to Final Plot 768/१.0 admeasuring 3065 sq meters in T P Scheme 3/5 and the plot located at main cross roads of Municipal school at Parimal crossing on C G Road ) in hot hurry showing undue favor to Harekrishna Developers and their advocates.

३।In view of undue haste in passing the orders without examining various aspects while not giving a proper hearing ,the City Mamlatdar has passed the Orders on 9th October 2007 itself without reading the contents of further written submissions made on October 9th, 2007 and without incorporating the observations to the said written submissions (made on 9th October 2007) in the Order finalized on 9th October 2007 by the City Mamlatdar.

४।The City Mamlatdar has miserably and deliberately failed to make detailed observations to my representations especially when it involves dubious practices used in hijacking the companies by way of amalgmation of three companies and sale of the property at less than Rs eight crores ( where the non performing asset was exceeding Rs 22 crores of Rupees and using dubious means to recover the term loan by sale of the property to the builder Harekrishna Developers in collusion with Oriental Bank of Commerce- successor to failed Global Trust Bank ).

The office of the Honorable Chief Minister of Gujarat has ordered investigation through Home Department earlier and the same is pending and was brought to the notice of the predecessor Collector in one of the emails sent earlier and the then Collector had been kind enough to give assurance that the matter would be examined vide email on 10th/11th July 2007. It appears that the City Mamlatdar has not closely examined the matter.




As the Builder has commenced the construction on the disputed property on Final Plot 768/10 , it is absolutely necessary to issue immediate status quo orders on the said property against Harekrishna Developers and their representatives while taking the photographs of the said property. It is also necessary to take further steps of attaching and sealing the said property for further investigation so as to examine the collusion between Harekrishna Developers and the Office of City Mamlatdar in detail.

I am furnishing some primae facie issues in the EXHIBIT A enclosed herewith. I am also furnishing table depicting enclosures of various annexure by way of EXHIBIT-B for ready reference so as to draw reasoned conclusions.

I shall be taking up the present matter with the Honorable Chief Minister in view of instructions given by the Honorable Chief Minister and explain the said details of the present case and related issues as it involves the issue of Life and Liberty and the issue of personal existence especially when I am already leading life as a living dead person while the family has been more or less is disintegrated. I therefore most humbly urge you to take all appropriate steps to avoid further multiplicity of legal proceedings.

It has been reported in today’s news paper ( dated 5th February 2008) that the office of the Collector would be closely examining the old titles of the property pertaining to the Hotel which came crashing down recently and several persons died. In view of such human approach , it is expected that my grievance would be dealt minutely.

I humbly urge you to review the passing of further entry 6027 which was done behind by back. Additional details shall be furnished subsequently.




Kindly acknowledge receipt of present grievance letter and prompt steps taken to restrain the builder from carrying on construction activity on the said disputed plot on account of Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 is pending trial in the Bhadra City Civil Court.
Thanking you.


Yours most respectfully,

PANKAJ S MODY.

MOBILE 94270-26109.



ENCLOSURES:-

1. EXHIBIT A
2. EXHIBIT B
3. ANNEXURES TO EXHIBIT B


EXHIBIT A

OF VARIOUS ISSUES IN RELATION OF COLLUSION OF HAREKRISHNA DEVELOPERS WITH CITY MAMLATDAR



1. The present record of right shows entry of 4913 and this entry pertains to the status quo position to be maintained in light of directions given by revenue department. As long as this entry was pending it was necessary that no fresh entry ( in particular 5975) ought to have been passed till the matter is examined in complete detail by the City Mamlatdar’s office in light of my objections raised by me.

2. I had submitted letter to the Collector office and Supritendant of Stamps on 16-5-2007 as regards large scale evasion of stamp duty of Government of Gujarat. In view of said letter and without furnishing detailed explanation , the order was passed by the City Mamlatdar which shows that the City Mamlatdar does not work in the interest of the revenue department at all.

3. The then collector of Ahmedabad had assured me vide email dated 10/11 July 2007 that the matter would be examined by their office. However, inspite of such assurance , the City Mamlatdar has not furnished detailed report in this regard at the time of proceedings in takrari nodh.

4. I had brought to the attention of the Talati/Circle Inspector vide my letter dated 25-1-2006 and 6-2-2007 to register the entry for Notice of Lis Pendens in light of Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 pending in the Bhadra City Civil Court pertaining to the final Plot 768/10 in Chadavad , T P Scheme 3/5 varied situated near Parimal Rly Crossing , Ahmedabad. To prevent multiplicity of proceedings as well as to hardship to me and any potential buyer , it was ABSOLUTELY necessary for the City Mamlatdar office to FIRST pass entry OF LIS PENDENS in the Record Of Right showing pending litigation before EVEN considering to pass the entry 5975 (pertaining to sale deed of Span Medicals Ltd in favour of Harekrishna Developers on 2-4-2007 vide document number 3315 registered with Sub registrar’s office. This has not been done at all which primaefacie indicates collusion and outright favour to the buyer Harekrishna Developers and thereby unnecessarily resulting in ( avoidable) multiplicity of legal proceedings for the undersigned.

5. The City Mamlatdar ought to have taken consideration the orders passed in SCA 16255 of 2006 on 4-8-2006 passed by Honorable Justice Jayant Patel of Gujarat High Court as the Court Order indicated that the Lis Pendens document cannot be ignored and the same ought to be brought to record so as to prevent hardship and multiplicity of legal proceedings. The said order was reported in my letters as well as on 3rd October 2007 to the City Mamlatdar due to her collusion did not apply Justice Jayant Patel’s said order and wrongfully made her Order on 9th October 2007. This primae facie indicates total lack of understanding and lack of appropriate skills of due diligence ,etc on the part of the City Mamlatdar.

6. Harekrishna Developers has misled the City Mamlatdar stating that my Civil Suit 5827/2001 has been disposed/dismissed and without verifying the facts , the City Mamlatdar has relied on the misleading statements of Harekrishna Developers and permitted the entry 5975 in favour of Harekrishna Developers by virtue of the Order passed on 9th October 2007. The City Mamlatdar has not obtained specific orders of the Bhadra City Civil Court that the Civil suit 5827/2001 pertaining to this particular property has been finally disposed off. This reflects incompetency of the City Mamlatdar as well as collusion with Harekrishna Developers and their advocates.

7. Pursuant to letter dated 30 May 2007, the City Mamlatdar had issued instructions to the Talati/Circle Officer to conduct detailed investigation vide their letter dated 5/6/07 vide RTS/RIV/vashi 2686 to carry investigation and make detailed report on the same.

However, the detailed findings have not been furnished to the undersigned in this regard before the Order was passed on 9th October 2007 in takrari nodh74/2007 by City Mamlatdar does not clarify as to the said instructions at all The copy of the order dated 9th October 2007 is once again produced as per link under:-

The City Mamlatdar ought to have made available the copy of detailed investigation report to the undersigned in view of my earlier correspondence so that I am given necessary opportunity to make my comments in this regard.The undue haste by City mamlatdar indicates undue favour to Harekrishna Developers and cause lot of hardship and multiplicity of expensive legal proceedings to me which I am not in a position to afford at all.

8. It is also necessary that the Collector gives instructions to the administration working under him so as to obtain detailed findings pursuant to email dated 4th October 2007 to Advocate A C Damani ( Advocate giving written opinion to Harekrihsna Developers) with a copy marked to Oriental Bank of Commerce and the Collectorate office. Neither Oriental Bank of Commerce nor has A C Damani has clarified which primae facie means that something is fishy. It is therefore , necessary to hold detailed inquiry in this regard.

9. It is also necessary that the Collector gives instructions to the administration working under him so as to obtain detailed findings pursuant to email dated 4th October 2007 to Advocate A C Damani ( Advocate giving written opinion to Harekrihsna Developers) with a copy marked to Auditor Hemant Kashiparekh of Span Medicals ,etc and the Collectorate office. Neither the auditor nor has A C Damani has clarified which primae facie means that something is fishy. It is therefore , necessary to hold detailed inquiry in this regard.

10. The issues narrated above are not the only one that are narrated here. There are many for lapses on the part of City Mamlatdar reflecting collusion with Harekrishna Developers and their advocates.

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

व्रित्तें सुब्मिस्सिओंस TO सिटी माम्लात्दर ९-१०-२००७

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajk9zjjh6gtf_510gdt87bcb

COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO CITY MAMLATDAR IN TAKRARI NODH

४-१०-०७ ईमेल TO दमानी और ओरिएण्टल बैंक ऑफ़ कोम्मेर्स और कलेक्टर

from

pankaj mody

hide details
10/4/07

to

damaniadvocates@hotmail.com,rh_ahm@obc.co.in


cc

"COLLECTOR,AHMEDABAD"


date

Oct 4, 2007 4:12 AM


subject

Fwd: SPAN MEDICALS LIMITED IS NOT LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY REFERRED IN MY CIVIL SUIT 5827 OF 2001 PENDING AGAINST YOU , CORE HEALTHCARE LIMITED ,ETC.


mailed-by

gmail.com


From :- Pankaj S Mody
2nd Floor , Janmangal Apartment
40 Brahman Mitra Mandal Society
Ahmedabad 380 006
email modyps@gmail.com


dated 4th October 2007,

For Kind attention of Mr.A.C.Damani
"Damanis", 1-A National Park Society
Opp Panch Bunglows, Govt Quarters , Gulbai Tekra , Ahmedabad 380 015
Fax:- 079-26303370
Email damaniadvocates@hotmail.com


Sir,

Subject:- Dispute number 74/2007 pending before the City Mamlatdar as regards to entry number 5975 in record of right for Final Plot 768/10 located in Chadavad , T P Scheme 3/5 varied.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1. I am marking copy of email sent to Oriental Bank of Commerce (successor to Global Trust Bank).
2. Till date Oriental Bank of Commerce has failed to file detailed explanation in the court proceedings through their advocate.
3. In case Oriental Bank of Commerce fails to give detailed and fully transparent explanation as regards to copy of my email to Mrs. Swati Soparkar marked to them in March 2007 (annexed herewith) within next two working days, it is obvious that Oriental Bank of Commerce is hand in glove with Span Medicals and their associates to support false claim of Span Medicals for ownership of the property.
4. It is expected of Oriental Bank of Commerce to simultaneously to furnish detailed reply to the Collector of Ahmedabad ( meaning the City mamlatdar) , you and the undersigned.
5. In case your client Harekrishna Developers fails to take suitable measures against Oriental Bank of Commerce , it would be construed that Harekrishna Developers are in collusion with Oriental Bank of Commerce to make false claim on the property being claimed by Span Medicals Limited.
6. The present email is being marked to Oriental Bank of Commerce as well as to the Collector of Ahmedabad for their information.
7. Kindly furnish copy of steps taken by your client in next three to four days to seek reply from Oriental Bank of Commerce in this regard by email to the undersigned in case Oriental Bank of Commerce remains silent or gives unsatisfactory reply to you and to the undersigned.


Yours sincerely,

Pankaj S Mody
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: pankaj mody <modyps@gmail.com>Date: Mar 10, 2007 6:24 PMSubject: SPAN MEDICALS LIMITED IS NOT LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY REFERRED IN MY CIVIL SUIT 5827 OF 2001 PENDING AGAINST YOU , CORE HEALTHCARE LIMITED ,ETC. To: knprithviraj@obc.co.in, allencaperereira@obc.co.in, cmkhurana@obc.co.in, hkmadan@obc.co.in, kksaraf@obc.co.in, vidya.rudra@obcmail.co.inCc: sucheta dalal <suchetadalal@yahoo.com >




- Show quoted text -
Pankaj S Mody
2nd Floor , Janmangal Apt
40 Brahman Mitra Mandal Society
Ahmedabad 380 006

Email :- modyps@gmail.com

11th March 2007

The CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE NEW DELHIknprithviraj@obc.co.in

The Executive Director
Oriental Bank of Commerce
New Delhi
allencapereira@obc.co.in


The General Managers,
Oriental Bank of Commerce
New Delhi
cmkhurana@obc.co.in
hkmadan@obc.co.in
kksaraf@obc.co.in
THE REGIONAl HEADORIETNAL BANK OF COMMERCE CHANYKYA , 4TH FLOOR ,NEAR DINESH HALLOFF ASHRAM ROADPHONE 26587539, 26585830, FAX -26589456 rh_ahd@obc.co.in



Oriental Bank of Commerce
G-2, Samegh,
Near Associated Petrol Pump
C G Road
Ahmedabad , 380 006
Email :- vidya.rudra@obcmail.co.in


Sir,

1. Kindly refer to action taken by you under Securitisation Act for grabbing the possession of property referred in the Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 in the Bhadra Court of Ahmedabad.

2. It has come to my notice that due diligence exercise has not been carried out before accepting Span Medicals Limited (SML) as legitimate owner of the entire property referred in the Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 inspite of email to you on 27-12-2004 and emails to you , thereafter.

3. In this connection , I have addressed letter to advocate Swati Soparkar on 7 th February 2007 and copy of same is annexed herewith. The contents are self explanatory . She and her husband has maintained stone silence and has no bothered to give any reply which means that she is hand in glove with the fraudulent practices followed by Jatin Jalundhwala for amalgamating RIPL and FPPL with Span Medicals Limited It also . Mr. Soparkar has appeared as counsel for Span Medicals Ltd in the court against Oriental Bank of Commerce and the bank has not brought it to the attention of the court the misdeeds of Mr Soparkar and Mrs Soparkar for obvious reasons.


4. It is crystal clear that SML is not legal owner of the property referred in Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 for which the steps under securitization act were initiated by you under Securitisation Act.

5. Kindly note that GTB has already produced document in Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 proceedings in the form of Confirmatory letter dated 3rd March 1999 addressed to the Assistant General Manager by Jatin Jalundhwala and it has been stated in the FIRST SCHEDULE vide Para 3 that he has furnished to the bank - certified true copy of death certificate dated 22-4-1988 of Maniben widow of Prabhubhai Bhikhabhai issued by Ahmedabad Muncipal Corporation. This clearly means that Mrs Maniben P Shah was not alive when the application of amalgamation of RIPL and FPPL was made in the year 2000/2001 for amalgamation RIPL and FPPL with Span Medicals Limited. It has been also referred by your bank vide your letter dated 21-10-1999 addressed to the undersigned that the shares continue to be held by the mody family and were not transferred then.

6. In case you do not take steps to protect my rights as well as interest in the property referred in my Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 , then you are protecting and shielding fraudulent acts of Mrs Swati Soparkar as well as her husband Mr Saurabh Soparkar , Jatin Jalundhwala as well as main promoter of Core Healthcare Ltd – Sushil Handa and the management of Span Medicals Limited.

7. It is needless to state that in case you do not inform the action taken against the above persons then you are violating the legal provisions especially when you are public servants over and above other legal violations connected with financial frauds. It is needless to state that all of you would be held liable by requisite authorities including the courts.

8. Kindly note that GTB has already produced document in Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 proceedings in the form of Confirmatory letter dated 3rd March 1999 addressed to the Assistant General Manager by Jatin Jalundhwala and it has been stated in the FIRST SCHEDULE vide Para 3 that Certified true copy of death certificate dated 22-4-1988 of Maniben widow of Prabhubhai Bhikhabhai issued by Ahmedabad Muncipal Corporation.

9. The copy of the present email is being circulated to various authorities so that they begin to investigate and look into the conduct of the bank officers of your bank for the reasons already known to you in case you do not take strong visible action again against Soparkars, Sushil Handa, Jatin Jalundhwala in next three working days from the present email sent to you.

10. It is needless to state that I am entitled to get the possession of the property from you in light of steps taken by you in the past under Securitization Act.

Yours sincerely,

Pankaj S Mody

- Hide quoted text -

Enclosure :- ---------- Forwarded message ----------From: pankaj mody < modyps@gmail.com>Date: Feb 7, 2007 2:07 PM Subject: FOR YOUR URGENT ATTENTION TO HIGHLIGHT CONDUCT OF CORE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT IN COMP 10 OF 2006 CONNECTED WITH COMA 357 PENDING IN HON'ABLE JUSTICE GARG'S COURT. To: SWATI SOPARKAR < soparkarad1@sancharnet.in>
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
From:-
Pankaj S Mody
C/o Shri S S Modi
2nd Floor , Janmangal Apt
40 Brahman Mitra Mandal Soc
Ahmedabad 380 006
Email :- modyps@gmail.com

7th February 2007

Mrs Swati Soparkar, Advocate
204 Akanksha ,Opposite Vadilal House
Nr. Mount Carmel Railway Crossing
Near Navrangpura Police Station
Ahmedabad 380 009
Phone Number :- 26430707,26404245,26404246,
Fax:- 079-26563214
Email:- soparkarad1@sancharnet.in

Madam,

Subject:- Company Petition No 10 of 2006 connected with Company Application No 357 of 2005 regarding Core Healthcare's demerger with M/s Nirma Limited.
===============================================================
You have filed Company Application in Gujarat High Court in the year 2000 at instance of someone representing Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited for amalgamating this company with M/s Span Medicals Limited and it appears that you have ignored my letter dated 1-3-2006 addressed to you where in I had annexed copy of my letter dated 16-3-2005 addressed to Mr. Sushil Handa and Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala.
By now , you ought to have made thorough detailed and exhaustive inquiry in this regard by talking to your husband Mr. Soparkar as well as the person who made application to Gujarat High Court for amalgamation of the companies as well as Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala and Mr. Sushil Handa as well as Mr. Kamlesh Shah (Kamlesh shah representing representing Core Healthcare Limited and Span Medicals Limited).
It has been reported in Annual Report of Core Healthcare Limited for the period 2004-2005 that its subsidiary Span Medicals Limited comprises of Preference share capital of 1,69,000 shares. On a closer examination at your end, you would have learnt that a total of 1,67,000 preference shares have been issued to my Late maternal grandmother Mrs. Maniben P Shah as they pertain to the shares standing in her name in Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited ( 14,900 preference shares of Rs 100 each) and Flovin Plastics Private Limited ( 18,000 preference shares of Rs 10 each ). It is needless to state that you as an experienced advocate would have carried out due diligence exercise by verifying and matching the signatures of Mrs. Maniben P Shah (giving approval for amalgamation) with those in the company records.
Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala has filed documentation for Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd with Global Trust Bank in 1999 for availing Rs 12.5 crore loan from them for Core Healthcare Limited and therein he has enclosed death certificate issued in 1988 certifying demise of my maternal grandmother Mrs Maniben P Shah and could not have been alive in year 2000 or thereafter.
In view of contents in above paragraph , it is crystal clear that my maternal grand mother Late Mrs. Maniben P Shah in the year 2000 or in the year 2001 could not have given her written consent for amalgamating Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited with Span Medicals.This is in light of order passed on 23-1-2001 by Honorable Justice Mr. K.R.Vyas on 23-1-2001 in Company Petition 288 to 295 of 2000.The extract of order specified: " The meetings of the preference shareholders of two transferor companies were directed to be convened and the scheme was unanimously approved at the respective meetings" . As to how Mrs. Maniben P Shah was made alive in Year 2000 is a mystery to any person .

It is therefore necessary that you rectify the situation by approaching Gujarat High Court and telling the truth failing which on the basis of facts and circumstances it is obvious that you are remaining silent to protect yourself , your husband Mr Soparkar and your client Core Healthcare Limited,etc from illegal and fraudulent acts . Any reluctance on your part in this regard would confirm that you wanted to mislead the Gujarat High Court to protect yourself as well as Mr. Soparkar along with your clients and Mr Jalundhwala.
Under the circumstances , it is necessary that you take immediate independent decision on your own and bring it on record in writing in the proceedings of Company Petition 10 of 2006 in COMA 357 of 2005 for the sake of transparency as well as for exposing the fraudulent acts of your client company and all the persons associated with them including Mr. Soparkar. Your failure to do so would confirm that you are deliberately turning a blind eye so as to cover up the fraudulent and illegal acts of Core Healthcare Limited , Mr. Jalundhwala , Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Oriental Bank of Commerce, etc. Any tarnishing of your name as advocate would ultimately affect the future of your children.
The present letter is being circulated shortly amongst all the Honorable Judges of Gujarat High Court as well as Bar Council of Gujarat so that they begin to view all your company application and petitions suspiciously as well as get your name suspended as practicing advocate in Gujarat HighCourt and your conduct gets well publicised.More details would be published on googlepages from time to time. Reference internet link:- http://buntyaurbubblyadvocates.googlepages.com

In order to justify your innocence in the matter , it is necessary that you take immediate stern criminal action against Mr. Soparkar , Mr. Jalundhwala , Mr. Kamlesh J Shah as well as the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce failing which you personally are hand in glove with your husband Mr. Soparkar as well as Core Healthcare group and Mr. Jalundhwala to bury their fraudulent misdeeds .
You and your husband remind me of Bunty Aur Bubbly to take the world for a ride using ingenious methods of cheating the people and hence the present letter is being given wide circulation.
Your silence as well as your unsatisfactory explanation would confirm your fraudulent and illegal acts to deceive the undersigned as well as the judiciary.
I reserve my right to make additional comments at appropriate time if necessary.
Your sincerely,
Pankaj S Mody

PRESENT LETTER IS ADDRESSED BY PANKAJ MODY FOR PERSONAL SAFETY -PRESENT AND FUTURE ON ACCOUNT OF SLY TACTICS BEING EMPLOYED BY YOUR HUSBAND - MR. SAURABH SOPARKAR

ईमेल ४-१०-०७ TO दामनी तथा काशिपारेख और कलेक्टर

from pankaj mody hide details 10/4/07
to damaniadvocates@hotmail.com
cc

hemant kashiparekh ,
"COLLECTOR,AHMEDABAD" ,
colahmed@guj.nic.in
date Oct 4, 2007 2:50 AM
subject REGARDING DISPUTED ENTRY OF HAREKRISHNA DEVELOPERS PENDING BEFORE CITY MAMLATDAR ,AHMEDABAD
mailed-by gmail.com




From :- Pankaj S Mody

2nd Floor , Janmangal Apartment

40 Brahman Mitra Mandal Society

Ahmedabad 380 006

email modyps@gmail.com





dated 4th October 2007,



For Kind PERSONAL attention of Mr.A.C.Damani

"Damanis", 1-A National Park Society

Opp Panch Bunglows, Govt Quarters ,

Gulbai Tekra , Ahmedabad 380 015

Fax:- 079-26303370

Email damaniadvocates@hotmail.com





Sir,



Subject:- Dispute number 74/2007 pending before the City Mamlatdar as regards to entry number 5975 in record of right for Final Plot 768/10 located NEAR PARIMAL RLY CROSSING ,NEAR MUNICIPAL SCHOOL , Chadavad , T P Scheme 3/5 varied.

---------------------------------------------------



1. I am annexing copy of email sent to auditor of Span Medicals Limited (that is Hemant Kashiparekh) who has maintained silence . It is obvious from his silence that he does not consider Span Medicals owner of Final Plot 768/10 admeasuring 3065 sqmeters and located at Parimal Crossing.Ahmedabad.

2. Span Medicals happens to be subsidiary of Core Healthcare Ltd but the audited balance sheet of Core Healthcare Limited for the period 2004-2005 does not annex the audited balance sheet of Span Medicals Limited and thereby the ownership of the above referred plot by Span Medicals is considered doubtful.

3. This indicates that Span Medicals is involved in hijacking of the companies (Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd by way of so called amalgamation) along with their immoveable property.

4. Harekrishna Developers can possibly obtain detailed confirmation backed by various documentary evidences from the auditor of Span Medicals Limited through Span Medicals Limited and simultaneously make it available by email to the undersigned , you and the City Mamlatdar (through The collector of Ahmedabad email id collector-ahd@gujarat.gov.in ) in next one or two working days of the present email to you.

5. A copy of the present email is also being marked to the auditor of Span Medicals Limited (that is Hemant Kashiparekh) for his knowledge and necessary action.

6. I reserve my right to offer my comments on the report of Mr. Kashiparekh , once , Mr. Kashiparekh gives a simultaneous detailed reply backed by all supporting papers to the undersigned as well as to you and the City Mamaltdar through the Collector of Ahmedabad. Thereafter, I reserve my right to offer my comments.

7. As the issue concerns the hijacking of companies and its assets as a precautionary measure for my personal safety , I am blowing open whistle to the outside world.



Thanking you.



Yours sincerely,



Pankaj S Mody







---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: pankaj mody
Date: Jul 20, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: your explanation to my letter dated 29 july 1999 for drawing attention of Table 3C ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING
To: hemant kashiparekh
Cc: ecowing@gmail.com






Pankaj S Mody
C/o 2nd floor , Janmangal Apt

40 Brahman Mitra Mandal Society

Ahmedabad 380 006

Email modyps@gmail.com

July 20 , 2007




TO,
HEMANT KASHIPAREKH
Ashish Hemant Kashiparekh
Akshay Apartment , High Court Lane

Ashram Road , Ahmedabad 380 009

Sir,


Kindly refer to my earlier email dated 23/2/2007 which was not replied by you. Your silence shows that you are not approving the amalgmation of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd with Span Medicals Ltd but for reasons best known to you have chosen to remain silent .


I had addressed a letter dated 29 July 1999 addressed to you. A copy of the same is annexed herewith for your reference . Till date the letter has not been replied by you . Even Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala and his associates were not able to obtain reply from you and furnish a reply to the undersigned.


It is obvious from your silence that you do not approve of Jatin Jalundhwala having authority and power to create charge on the immoveable property owned by Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd in Final Plot 768 of 10 in situated near Parimal Railway Crossing. , Ahmedabad.


I marking a copy of the present email to Economic Offence Wing for their reference and in case you do not furnish me a detailed satisfactory reply to the undersigned as well as to the Economic Offence Wing within next three days , it would be taken for granted that you are not approving Jatin Jalundhwala's creation of charge with Global Trust Bank.


As you are aware that Span Medicals Limited has sold the property to HareKrishna Builders , there is possibility of threat to my life as well as harrassment and torture. In this eventuality , you would be equally responsible for threat to my life , harrassment and torture.








I reserve my right to give my further observations at a later date


Yours sincerely,




PankajS Mody


ANNEXURE






Letter addressed to Kashiparekh on 29-7-1999
PANKAJ S MODY



DIRECTOR AND SHAREHOLDER OF RUPMANGLAM INVESTMENT PVT LTD




JULY 29,1999





BY SPEED POST AD




PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL




KASHIPAREKH AND ASSOCIATES,


AKSHAY APARTMENTS



HIGHCOURT LANE


AHMEDABAD 380 009






Sir,


I am shareholder and director of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.


Your firm is auditor of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.





I would like to draw your attention that Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala jas registered charge on immoveable property of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd in favour of Global Trust Bank for granting term loan of Rs 12.5 crore loan to Core Health care ltd , a loss making company without having necessary authority and power of the Board of Directors as well as members of the company violating various provisions of company law.

It would not be out of place to mention that DhanyushyaFinancial Pvt Ltd through their advocate Shri Ashok D Shah had served the notice to me dated 12-12-1998 , whereby, I am accepted, confirmed and acknowledged as director of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd . Besides, Dhanyuhsya Financial Private Ltd has not put forth any claim that Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala is the legal director of Rupmangalm Investment Private Ltd.

In the reply given by my advocate , Shri Killol V Shelat dated 1-2-1999 to Dhanyushya 's advocate Shri Ashok D Shah , Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd has not dared to submit reply even though more than half a year has elapsed and has also not refuted to the claim of Shri Pankaj S Mody as director of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.



Moreover, Dhanyushya Fiancial Pvt Ltd has not cared to produce necessary evidence called for by me.-e.g. I had called for companya auditor's report in relation to transfer of shares, if any and whether it is in accordance with the provisions of the company law pertaining to articles of association and memorandum of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd and as per the guide lines of Institute of Chartered accountants of India, New Delhi.





For your information, balance sheet pertaining to period 96-97 of Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd does not show acquisition of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd shares belonging to mody family.

Inspite of Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala being aware at the time of Shri Killol V Shelat's letter dated 1-2-1999 that he was not in a postion tofurnish evidence of ownership of shares owned by Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd , he goes ahead with mortgaging of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd which clearly show misrepresentation , concealment and suppression of material facts as well as show his malafide intentions.Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala is instrumental in putting shareholders of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd at irretrievable loss violating provisions of company law.

You being the auditor of the company owe responsibility to the members of the company, and initiate necessary action when company assets are being stripped and siphoned to such large extent.

As per Institute guidelines as per company law provisions you are to conduct detailed inquiry immediately in professional manner keeping in view the interest of shareholders of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd.

As a auditor of the company, you are to procure detailed evidence (by verifying minute books) , resolutions, notice for transfer of shares , compliance of articles 10 to 17 of articles of association and memorandum) from Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala , who is posing as director of the company and having necessary power of the board of directors and members of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd to mortgage property of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.





As the amount of fraud involved is ver large, I hope that your firm shall take the matter seriously and report findings.

Thanking you.





Yours sincerely,




Pankaj S Mody



(DIRECTOR and SHAREHOLDER OF










RUPMANGLAM INVESTMENT PVT LTD)

ईमेल से जवाब कलेक्टर से १०-७-०७

COLLECTOR,AHMEDABAD"
hide details
7/10/07
to

pankaj mody

date
Jul 10, 2007 11:55 PM

subject
Re: FOR PERSONAL ATTENTION OF THE COLLECTOR OF AHMEDABAD- ( FINAL PLOT 768/10 NEAR DOCTOR HOUSE, PARIMAL CROSSING ) PENDING FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON WRONGFUL CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP

> *> We will attend to this and act as per law.

> FOR PERSONAL AND URGENT ATTENTION OF THE COLLECTOR OF AHMEDABAD.>> Pankaj S Mody> *>> 2nd Floor, Janmangal Apartment>> * *40 Brahman Mitra Mandal> *> Society*>> * PALDI* ,>> * *Ahmedabad 380 006>> Email modyps@gmail.com>> Dated 6th July 2007>> *>> The Collector of Ahmedabad>> Office of Collector>> Near RTO, Shubhash Bridge>> Ahmedabad* ,>> Respected Sir/Madam,>>> *>> Subject:- Final Plot 768/10 located in T P Scheme 3 , Chadavad admeasuring> 3065 sqmeters standing in name of Span Medicals Ltd.>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *

ओब्जेक्शन लैटर ३०-५-२००७ TO सिटी माम्लात्दर

pankaj mody

5/30/07
to

collector-ahd@gujarat.gov.in

cc

secrev@gujarat.gov.in

date
May 30, 2007 6:17 AM

subject
TOP PRIORITY MESSAGE FOR HOLDING PROPERTY IN NAME OF SPAN MEDICALS LTD IN CUSTODY OF COLLECTOR ( FINAL PLOT 768/10 NEAR DOCTOR HOUSE, PARIMAL CROSSING ) PENDING FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON WRONGFUL CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP

mailed-by
gmail.com


TOP PRIORITY MESSAGE AND MOST IMPORTANT

From:- Pankaj S Mody
2nd Floor, Janmangal Apt
40 Brahman Mitra Mandal Soc
Paldi, Ahmedabad 380 006

Email :- modyps@gmail.com

Dated 30th May 2007

To ,

1 ) The Collector of Ahmedabad
Collector office , Near R T O Ahmedabad
Phone:- 27551681, Mobile:- 98250-49134

2) The City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad
collector Office , Near R TO Ahmedabad

3) The Talati/Circle Inspector
Madalpur, Near Town Hall ,
Ahmedabad


Respected Sir,

Subject:- 1) To cancel and delete Entry 5512 in respect of ownership of property ( Final Plot 768/10 located in T P Scheme 3/5, varied , Madalpur ) being shown in name of Span Medicals in Record of Right

2) Holding the property in the custody of the Collector pending investigation in respect of the above referred Final Plot 768/10 so as to avoid further litigations.
================================================
1. It has come to my notice recently from copy of Record of Right pertaining to the above referred Final Plot , that the Final plot stands in the name of Span Medicals Limited vide entry number 5512. This entry has been recorded in the Record of Right on the basis if amalgmation order dated 23-1-2001 furnished by Span Medicals to your office. Span Medicals has suppressed vital facts in guise of amalgmation so as to bury various fraudulent acts of creating charge on the property by mortgaging the property to Global Trust Bank through Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala.

2. I humbly request your to minutely examine the following issues and verify the facts s per the information so as to cancel the entry 5512 in the record of Right as well as cancel the sale deed executed on 2-4-2007 executed by Span Medicals Limited in view of the information referred as under:-

a) It appears that Span Medicals Limited has deliberately kept the revenue authorities in dark of the pending civil suit 5827 /2001 instituted by the undersigned in the Bhadra Court especially when they had replied on behalf of Dhanyushaya Financial Pvt Ltd. They deliberately suppressed details of amalgmation of Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited and Flovin Plastics Private Limited with Span Medicals Ltd even when this was brought to their notice in the year 2002 in the court proceedings and there by creating obstructing process of natural justice to the undersigned.

b) Recently, I have been provided a copy of scheme of amalgmation order pertaining to Span Medicals by the director of Span Medicals Limited and I was shocked to learn that the Registered Office of Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd was shifted to Baroda before submitting the amalgmation application to the Gujarat High Court in October 2000. This needs to be verified in detail especially when the major assets of Rupmanglam and Flovin are situated in Ahmedabad and the so called directors referred by them have residential address in Ahmedabad and work in Ahmedabad. in proximity to the above referred plot .Therefore, it is necessary to closely examine various issues narrated as under:-

· To call for Bank statements of Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd of their banks in Baroda.
· Particulars of the office ownership who has permitted them to use their premises in Baroda and any connection with this persons in any manner.
· To obtain particulars from Span Medicals Limited and Jatin Jalundhwala as to the Income Tax Department in Baroda who would be carrying out assessment of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd has been as to the Income tax officer when the shifting of registered office.
· Particulars notified to the Police authorities for shift in registered office from one city to other city.

c) Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala claiming to have authority and power to own and control the legal ownership of the property belonging to Rupmanglam and Flovin has issued clarification to IDBI in the year 2002 regarding the Special Investigation Audit ( at the instance of BIFR) conducted by Ernst and Young Accountancy Firm that only physical possession has been obtained but the legal ownership of the property does not vest with them.

d) Recently, Span Medicals Limited has furnished copies of transfer deeds showing transfer of shares belonging to me and my family members in 1996-1997 to Dhanyushaya Financial Pvt Ltd . However, the ownership of the shares is not reflected in the balance sheet of Dhanyushaya Financial Pvt Ltd for the period 1996-1997. This means that the transfer deeds have been obtained after the expiry of the validity of the period. These transfer deeds have not been furnished in the proceedings of Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 and therefore, Dhanyushaya could not have given any consent of amalgamating Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited as they were not legitimate owners of shares of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.

e) I have brought it to the attention of Advocate Mrs. Swati Soparkar ( who appeared as advocate for Span Medicals , Rupmanglam and Flovin for conducting amalgmation of companies vide High Court order) vide my letter to her on 7-2-2007 that consent of the preference holder Mrs. Maniben P Shah could not have been obtained in the year 2000 as she was not alive in the year 2000 and the same was in knowledge of Jatin Jalundhwala especially when he furnished death certificate issued in 1998 to Global Trust Bank pertaining to demise of Mrs. Maniben P Shah. In the interest of natural justice , it is necessary to record the statement of Mrs Swati Soparkar ( address:- 204 Akaknsha , Near Vadilal House , Navrangpura Railway Crossing, Ahmedabad)and record her statement and insist on satisfactory explanation while I am being given opportunity to give my comments in this regard.

f) The contents of my above letter to Mrs Swati Soparkar has been brought to the attention of Hemant Kashiparekh (auditor of Span Medicals Limited) vide my letter dated 23-2-2007. However, the auditor has not asserted that Span Medicals is the legitimate owner of the entire property. In the interest of the natural justice , it is necessary to record the statement of Hemant Kashiparkeh (address:- Ground Floor, Akshay Apartment , Off Old High court land and near House of Bakeris) and the opportunity is given to the undersigned for my comments.

g) I have also furnished the copy of my letter addressed to Mrs. Swati Soparkar to Orient Bank of Commerce ( who have taken over Global Trust Bank ) vide my email to Orient Bank of Commerce. Strangely, the bank has remained silent. This primae facie shows that they have not ascertained the facts on amalgamtion independently by verification and has blindly accepted the Order of amalgmation furnished by Span Medicals Limited depicting that Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd has been amalgamated with Span Medicals Ltd and therefore the assets of Rupmanglam and Flovin has been taken over by Span Medicals Limited too. Oriental Bank of Commerce has acted as custodian and guardian of the property in guise of mortgage and has permitted Span Medicals to sale the property to Hare Krishna Developers for recovery of term loan given to Core Healthcare Ltd. Even as banker , they have not been following ethical and transparent practices which is expected of Oriental Bank of Commerce which is owned by Government of India. It also appears that Harekrishna Developers, (the purchaser of the referred property) has not been informed by Oriental Bank of Commerce as well as Span Medicals Limited as regards to my Lis Pendens document reflecting my pending Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 in the City Civil Court of Ahmedabad. In the interest of justice and fairness to the undersigned , it is necessary to record the statement of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and the undersigned is given the opportunity to offer his comments and observations while cross examining them.

h) Pursuant to letter addressed to Jatin Jalundhwala on 16-3-2005, he has not been able to give written declaration of escrow persons ( Mr. Kahiparekh and Mr. Soparkar) had given compliance certificate of transfer of the companies and its assets by obtaining no objection certificate of the directors of Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited and Flovin Plastics Pvt Limited. This violates the provision of Transfer of Property Act. In the interest of natural justice it is necessary to record the statement of Jatin Jalundhwala , Mr. Saurabh Soparkar and Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh and I be given opportunity to offer my comments and cross examine them.

3. Pending further investigation as referred in above paragraph and also for the sake of avoiding multiplicity of legal proceedings as well as harassment , it is necessary to TAKE CUSTODY OR SEAL THE ABOVE PROERTY so that the builders do not PROCEED WITH construction in guise of scheme promoted by them as well as collect advance funds from the customers and putting them in jeopardy and create more complications.

4. I solicit your valued support on receipt of the present letter. I would also like to state that, the subject matter is under investigation by Police authorities and therefore , I humbly request you to keep in abeyance of passing of entry in revenue records pertaining to the Sale Deed executed by Span Medicals Limited in favor of Harekrishna Developers on 2-4-2007 vide document registered vide 3315/2007 before the Sub-Registrar, Paldi at Multistoreyed Building Laldarwaja.

5. As the matter involves the issue of Life and Liberty , I would be very soon making application under Right to Information Act in case I do not receive satisfactory reply from you very soon.

6. I r4eserve my right to offer my further observations and objections as regards to this property at later date.

7. Kindly acknowledge receipt of the present petition letter.

Thanking you.


Yours sincerely,

Pankaj S Mody

लैटर दतेद १६-५-२००७ TO सिटी माम्लात्दर , सुप्रितेंदंत ऑफ़ स्ताम्प्स

PANKAJ S MODY
2ND FLOOR, JANMANGAL APT
40 BRAHMAN MITRA MANDAL SOC
PALDI, AHMEDABAD 380 006
email :- modyps@gmail.com
Residence telephone number 26579107

16TH MAY 2007
To ,
1. The City Mamlatdar, COLLECTOR'S OFFICE
2. The Sub Registar of Documents , Multistoreyed building , LALDARWAJA Ahmedabad
3. The Deputy Collector , Stamp Duty Valuation-Section 1, Old Polytechnic, ahmwdabad
4. SUPRITENDANT OF STAMPS, GANDHINAGAR
SIR,
SUBJECT:- OBJECTION TO PASSING OF ENTRY IN REVENUE RECORDS and record of right PERTAINING TO SALE DEED DOCUMENT 3315/2007 REGISTERED BY SPAN MEDICALS LTD IN FAVOR OF HAREKRISHNA DEVELOPERS on 2-4-2007 AS REGARDS FINAL PLOT 768/10 ADMEASURING 3065 SQMETERS IN TP SCHEME 3/5 CHADAVAD.
REFERENCE:-IN CONTINUATION OF PREVIOUS PETITION LETTER DATED 7TH MAY 2007.
This is reference to the above.
The sale deed was registered in Sub Registrar's office for Rs 7,22,40,000/-
I have reason to believe that the valuation of the above plot to be higher on account of the submissions made by Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala that the valuation of the said land was Rs 12.48 crores (prior to year 1999) as per the Enclosure submitted to IDBI vide letter dated 23-7-2002 ( A1 and A2) pursuant to Ernst and Young – Investigation report ( Extract on A3 ) . The valuation was carried out by Chokshi and Company as per the Ernst and Young Report. On the basis of this valuation long time back, the present valuation of the plot would be much higher as the previous valuation was long time back.
In view of the above referred circumstances , there is large scale evasion of Gujarat stamp duty and there fore the entire sale deed needs to be declared void. It is also necessary that the passing of entries in all the revenue records need to be suspended for time being. and I humbly request you to take appropriate steps by your office to seal the property.
In the interest of natural justice , I am given opportunity of being heard in the matter satisfactorily.
I look forward to your detailed reply at an early date and I reserve my right to make additional grounds of my objections at later stage.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of the present letter addressed to you.
Yours sincerely,
Pankaj S Mody
Enclosure:-
Annexure A1- 23-7-02 letter by Mr. Jalundhwala
Annexure A2- Core Healthcare observations to Ernst and Young
report
Annexure A3- Extract of Ernst and Young Report

ओब्जेक्शन लैटर २०-४-०७

वीगत

सर्कल ओफ्फिसर से १३-२-०७ ख़त

वीगत

ईमेल लैटर TO स्वाती सोपरकर ७-२-२००७

ईमेल की कॉपी

---------- Forwarded message ---------- *WITHOUT PREJUDICE*
From:-
* Pankaj S Mody *
*C/o Shri S S Modi*
*2nd Floor , Janmangal Apt*
*40 Brahman Mitra Mandal Soc*
*Ahmedabad 380 006*
*Email :- mod...@gmail.com*
* *
*7th February 2007** *
*Mrs Swati Soparkar, Advocate*
*204 Akanksha ,Opposite Vadilal House *
*Nr. Mount **Carmel** Railway Crossing*
*Near Navrangpura Police Station*
*Ahmedabad 380 009*
*Phone Number :- 26430707,26404245,26404246,*
*Fax:- 079-26563214*
*Email:- soparkar...@sancharnet.in *
Madam,
Subject:- Company Petition No 10 of 2006 connected with Company Application No 357 of 2005 regarding Core Healthcare's demerger with M/s Nirma Limited.
===============================================================
1. You have filed Company Application in Gujarat High Court in the year 2000 at instance of someone representing Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited for amalgamating this company with M/s Span Medicals Limited and it appears that you have ignored my letter dated 1-3-2006 addressed to you where in I had annexed copy of my letter dated 16-3-2005 addressed to Mr. Sushil Handa and Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala.
1. By now , you ought to have made thorough detailed and exhaustive inquiry in this regard by talking to your husband Mr. Soparkar as well as the person who made application to Gujarat High Court for amalgamation of the companies as well as Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala and Mr. Sushil Handa as well as Mr. Kamlesh Shah (Kamlesh shah representing representing Core Healthcare Limited and Span Medicals Limited).
1. It has been reported in Annual Report of Core Healthcare Limited for the period 2004-2005 that its subsidiary Span Medicals Limited comprises of Preference share capital of 1,69,000 shares. On a closer examination at your end, you would have learnt that a total of 1,67,000 preference shares have been issued to my Late maternal grandmother Mrs. Maniben P Shah as they pertain to the shares standing in her name in Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited ( 14,900 preference shares of Rs 100 each) and Flovin Plastics Private Limited ( 18,000 preference shares of Rs 10 each ). It is needless to state that you as an experienced advocate would have carried out due diligence exercise by verifying and matching the signatures of Mrs. Maniben P Shah (giving approval for amalgamation) with those in the company records.
1. Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala has filed documentation for Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd with Global Trust Bank in 1999 for availing Rs 12.5 crore loan from them for Core Healthcare Limited and *therein he has enclosed death certificate issued in 1988 certifying demise of my maternal grandmother Mrs Maniben P Shah* and could not have been alive in year 2000 or thereafter.
1. In view of contents in above paragraph , it is crystal clear that my maternal grand mother Late Mrs. Maniben P Shah in the year 2000 or in the year 2001 could not have given her written consent for amalgamating Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited with Span Medicals.This is in light of order passed on 23-1-2001 by Honorable Justice Mr. K.R.Vyas on 23-1-2001 in Company Petition 288 to 295 of 2000.The extract of order specified: " * The meetings of the preference shareholders of two transferor companies were directed to be convened and the scheme was unanimously approved at the respective meetings"** .* *As to how Mrs. Maniben P Shah was made alive in Year 2000 is a mystery to any person . *
1. It is therefore necessary that you rectify the situation by approaching Gujarat High Court and telling the truth *failing which on the basis of facts and circumstances it is obvious that you are remaining silent to protect yourself , your husband Mr Soparkar and your client Core Healthcare Limited,etc from illegal and fraudulent acts *. Any reluctance on your part in this regard would confirm that you wanted to mislead the Gujarat High Court to protect yourself as well as Mr. Soparkar along with your clients and Mr Jalundhwala.
1. Under the circumstances , it is necessary that you take immediate independent decision on your own and bring it on record in writing in the proceedings of Company Petition 10 of 2006 in COMA 357 of 2005 for the sake of transparency as well as for exposing the fraudulent acts of your client company and all the persons associated with them including Mr. Soparkar. Your failure to do so would confirm that you are deliberately turning a blind eye so as to cover up the fraudulent and illegal acts of Core Healthcare Limited , Mr. Jalundhwala , Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Oriental Bank of Commerce, etc. Any tarnishing of your name as advocate would ultimately affect the future of your children.
1. The present letter is being circulated shortly amongst all the Honorable Judges of Gujarat High Court as well as Bar Council of Gujarat so that they begin to view all your company application and petitions suspiciously as well as get your name suspended as practicing advocate in Gujarat HighCourt and your conduct gets well publicised.More details would be published on googlepages from time to time. Reference internet link:- http://buntyaurbubblyadvocates.googlepages.com/
1. In order to justify your innocence in the matter , it is necessary that you take immediate stern criminal action against Mr. Soparkar , Mr. Jalundhwala , Mr. Kamlesh J Shah as well as the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce failing which *you personally are hand in glove with your husband Mr. Soparkar as well as Core Healthcare group and Mr. Jalundhwala to bury their fraudulent misdeeds *.
1. You and your husband remind me of Bunty Aur Bubbly to take the world for a ride using ingenious methods of cheating the people and hence the present letter is being given wide circulation.
1. Your silence as well as your unsatisfactory explanation would confirm *your fraudulent and illegal acts* to deceive the undersigned as well as the judiciary.
1. I reserve my right to make additional comments at appropriate time if necessary.
Your sincerely, Pankaj S Mody
*PRESENT LETTER IS ADDRESSED BY PANKAJ MODY FOR PERSONAL SAFETY -PRESENT AND FUTURE ON ACCOUNT OF SLY TACTICS BEING EMPLOYED BY YOUR HUSBAND - MR. SAURABH SOPARKAR*.

CIVIL APPLICATION 12472/2006 ORDER 30-11-2006

CA/12472/2006 1/1 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR JOINING PARTY No. 12472 of 2006
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 808 of 2006
======================================
PANKAJ SURESCHANDRA MODY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SPAN MEDICALS LIMITED & 1 - Respondent(s)
====================================== PARTY-IN-PERSON for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR S.N. SOPARKAR, SR. ADV. With MR AMAR N BHATT and Kunal P. Vaishnav for Respondent(s) :

1,MR KM PARIKH for Respondent(s) : 2,

======================================
CORAM :
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Y.R.MEENA
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.DAVE
Date : 30/11/2006

ORAL ORDER

Admittedly, the applicant was not a party to Special Civil Application before the learned Single Judge. Neither any satisfactory explanation is given nor he has moved any application before the learned Single Judge for impleading him as party-respondent.

Before us also, he appeared in person. He has failed to show how any interest of the applicant is adversely affected by the order of the learned Single Judge, nor he placed any material on record to support his case.

No case is made out to implead him as party-respondent to the appeal. The application for impleading the applicant as party-respondent to the appeal stands rejected.

(Y.R. MEENA, ACTG. C.J.)
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.)
[sn devu] pps

ORDER IN SCA 16255 DATED 4-8-06 REGARDING NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS

SCA/16255/2006 6/6 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16255 of 2006
For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL =========================================================
1
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
DIPAKBHAI MANILAL PATEL & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO. SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
========================================================= Appearance :MR JC VYAS for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.MR MR MENGDEY, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,None for Respondent(s) : 2,=========================================================
CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL


Date : 04/08/2006


ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP waives service of rule for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and with the consent of the learned advocate appearing for both the sides, the matter is further heard today.
The only question, which arise for consideration of this Court is whether the action of the Mamlatdar denying entry of a registered document for lis pendens is legal and valid or not?
The short facts of the case are that as per the petitioners, they have filed Special Civil Suit No. 209/05 in the Court of learned Civil Judge(SD), Ahmedabad, for the specific performance of the contract and as per the petitioners, the said suit is pending and therefore, the notice of lis pendens was got registered by the petitioners as per the document(Annexure-B), which has been registered vide registration No. 5302 dated 20th June, 2006, of the Joint Sub-Registrar, SRO, Ahmedabad-2, Vadaj. After the document was registered, the petitioners submitted application to the Mamlatdar, Dascroi for entering of the said document. However, Mamlatdar, as per the communication dated 19.07.2006, informed to the petitioners that as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Transfer of Properties Act, there is no provision for registration of lis pendens and therefore, the application of the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached to this Court.
Whenever, the Suit pertaining to immovable property is filed, the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act are applicable on the principles of lis pendens in normal circumstances. However, so far as Gujarat State is concerned, there is amendment by Bombay Act No. 14 of 1939 read with Act No. 57 of 1959, whereby, the notice of pendency of Suit or the proceedings are required to be registered. Section 52 of the Act read with amendment Act No. IV of 1882 for Gujarat State and Maharashtra reads as under :
â¬S52. Transfer of property suit relating thereto-
During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit of proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under the decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.â¬ý
â¬SSTATE AMENDMENTS
Whole of Gujarat and Maharashtra
Amendment of Section 52 of Act IV of 1882.-Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 shall be renumbered as sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the said Act, and In sub-section (1) so renumbered after the word â¬Squestionâ¬ý the words and figures â¬Sif a notice of the pendency of such suit or proceedings is registered under Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908â¬ý, and after the word â¬Spropertyâ¬ý where it occurs for the second time, the words â¬Safter the notice is so registeredâ¬ý, shall be inserted; and after the said sub-section(1) so renumbered the following shall be inserted, namely:
â¬S(2) Every notice of pendency of a suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section(1) shall contain the following particulars, namely:
(a) the name and address of the owner of immovable property or other person whose right to the immovable property is in question;
(b) the description of the immovable property, the right to which is in question.
(c) the court in which the suit or proceeding is pending;
(d) the nature and title of the suit or proceedings; and
(e) the date on which the suit or proceeding was instituted.â¬ý(Bombay Act 14 of 1939, S.3)â¬ý

If the provisions of Section 52 read with aforesaid amendment for Gujarat State are considered, the principles of lis pendens would apply to a transaction if entered after institution of Suit only, if such notice of lis pendens is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and as per the provisions of the amendment, the notice of pendency of the suit should contain the details as per sub-section 2 of the amendment in Section 52, which is applicable to the Gujarat State. The essential purpose of the aforesaid amendment is to see that any person who may be interested to purchase the property when undertakes the title search of the property with the sub-registrar, the person concerned would be put to notice that a particular suit is pending before the competent Court and therefore, he may not be misguided or if with conscious knowledge, the person concerned has purchased the property, the purchaser may not be in a position to contend that he was not aware about the pendency of the litigation and consequently, the Suit may not be frustrated or the principles of lis pendens can have its full effect as per the provisions of Transfer of Properties Act.

Therefore, it appears that the stand of the Mamlatdar that such documents is not as per the provisions of the Transfer of the Properties Act is not correct and once a registered document is there, pertaining to the property in question, it is required for the Mamlatdar to enter the same in the revenue record of the Government. Of course, after undertaking the procedure, as may be required under the Bombay Land Revenue Code or other relevant law of giving notice to the affected party and thereafter to mutate the entry.

In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 19.07.2006 passed by Mamlatdar(Annexure-C) is quashed and set aside with the direction that Mamlatdar shall treat the document as valid as per the provisions of the Transfer of Properties Act read with the provisions of India Registration Act and shall further proceed in accordance with law for entering the same in the relevant record after undergoing the procedure as required under the Bombay Land Revenue Code read with the provisions of Gujarat Land Revenue Rules.

It is made clear that by the aforesaid direction, no additional right shall be read be read as created in favour of either parties to the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 209/05 and all rights and contentions of both the sides in the suit shall remain open and at the time when the entry is to be mutated based on the documents of lis pendens, both the sides shall be at the liberty to raise all contentions as may available in law.

Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
*bjoy

२५-१-०६ लैटर TO टलती सिटी माम्लात्दर

http://groups.google.com/group/FP-768-10-CHADAVAD/web/letter-to-talati-o-25-1-06-for-taking-on-record-notice-of-lis-pendens-regarding-pending-suit-on-the-property

16-1-06 ORDER IN SCA 1333/05

SCA/1333/2005 2/4 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1333 of 2005
==========================================
SPAN MEDICALS LTD. - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Respondent(s)
==========================================

Appearance :MR S.N.SOPARKAR,SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR.AMAR N BHATT for the Petitioner.
MR MIHIR J.THAKORE, SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR.KM PARIKH for the Respondent.

=========================================================
CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL
Date : 16/01/2006
ORAL ORDER

Rule. Learned advocate Mr.Ketan Parikh waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. This petition has been preferred against the action initiated by the respondent of taking over possession of the property bearing F.P.No.768 of T.P. Scheme No.3/5 situated near Parimal Railway Crossing, Ellis bridge, Ahmedabad.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.S.N. Soparkar appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Final Plot No.768 of T.P. Scheme No.3/5 admeasuring 3065 square metres of land, out of which, 2165 sq.metres of land was mortgaged with the respondent bank and, therefore, the respondent cannot issue a notice (Annexure â¬SHâ¬ý to the memo of the petition) to take over possession of the whole Final Plot No.768, which is admeasuring 3065 square metres. Thus, the notice issued by the respondent bank includes the notice for the property, which was never mortgaged to the respondent bank. In the impugned notice, out of Final Plot No.768, 900 square metres of land ought to be continued with the petitioner and the respondent bank is entitled only for 2165 square metres of land of F.P. No.768.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also pointed out clauses of mortgage deed and pointed out that only 2165 square metres of land was given as security and, therefore, notice dated 31st January, 2005 (Annexure â¬SHâ¬ý to the memo of petition), which is for the whole final plot No.768 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. I have heard the learned counsel Mr.Mihir Thakore appearing for the respondent bank, who has pointed out that the petitioner has mortgaged the property bearing Final Plot No.768 with the respondent bank. The title deeds of the Final Plot are with the respondent bank. As the litigation is pending before the Urban Development Tribunal for 900 square meters of land, the said portion of the land was not mortgaged with the respondent bank.

6. Learned advocate for the respondent has also drawn attention of the Court at page no.82 of the present petition and pointed out that Final Plot No.768 admeasuring 3065 square metres of land has been marked, so that 900 square metres of land can be separated. Similarly land of 2165 square meters has also been separated, which has been mortgaged with the respondent bank and, therefore, respondent bank has all power, jurisdiction and authority to issue Notice under section 13 of the Act,2002 and to take over possession of the disputed property, which was mortgaged with the respondent bank. Demarcation is already on the record of the case (As per page-80 of the memo of the petition).

7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner has mortgaged land bearing Final Plot No.768 admeasuring 2165 square metres and remaining 900 square metres of land was under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. As per the mortgage deed, the land admeasuring 2165 square metres was mortgaged by the petitioner to the respondent bank, which is an admitted fact, looking to the records of the case. Looking to the mortgage deed, it appears that the respondent bank can issue Notice only for 2165 square metres of the land. Out of total land of the Final Plot No.768, 900 square metres of land was never mortgaged by the petitioner to the respondent bank. In view of this fact, the notice (which is at Annexure â¬SHâ¬ý to the memo of the petition) shall be confined only to 2165 square metres of land in the Final Plot No.768 of T.P.No.3/5. Thus, the respondent bank is entitled to get possession of land bearing No.768 remeasuring 2165 square metres of land. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(D.N.PATEL,J)
dipti