w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Jaipur Investment Limited & Others v/s State of Rajasthan & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993RJ1946PTC000378

Company & Directors' Information:- JAIPUR INVESTMENT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993RJ1943PLC000215

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1942PTC011099

    Civil Writ Petition No. 20994 of 2013

    Decided On, 23 January 2015

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench


    For the Petitioners: Kamlesh Jain, Advocate. For the Caveator: Anant Kasliwal, Advocate.

Judgment Text

1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) Notification/Order no.D.123 dated 21-03-2000, issued by JDA Annexure-7 be quashed and set aside or modified-added. And also the Order No D-98 dated 10-5-2002 read with order dated 27 Dec., 1999, Annexure-8 be also either quashed and set aside or directed to respondents 1, 2 and 3 to be amended suitably incorporating no-condition of surrender of strip of land free of cost, parellel to KABIR MARG, BANK PARK, JAIPUR over "S" - block plots from "S-1 to S-8".

(ii) Alternatively, in absence of quashing suitable modification/additional/directions be issued to respondent nos.1 to 3/4 in respect of above two orders, either to declare whole of remaining residential plots as commercial at ENTIRE KABIR MARG beginning from JAI SINGH - collectorate circle/mahanagar courts to the end of old power house on both sides of the roads, since the plots bearing "S" numbers are already approved and commercially used as shop originally earmarked as such and sols through auction and not allotted as "D" - block plots had been done. Since "S" block plots were issued by auction AND all "D" block plots are allotted at concessional-subsidised rates and earmarked as residential, the change could be effected only by paying conversion cost/fees chargeable at appropriate rate per-sq. - yds/per-sq - M, say minimum of 5000 per sq M, depending upon DLC rates and other suitable price index indices and factors not taken into account so far etc., etc.

(iii) That in view of the inertness and defunctness since long period since 1964 and after division bench order of 21 - 03-1990 and, due to non holding of annual General Meeting under Section 167of the Companies Act, 1956 till to-date, and consequently all further acts of respondents 5,6 and 7 be declared null and void;

(iv) In order to fulfil and complete building project at "S - 5" the petitioner's through their associates be permitted to open current account in the name of the company in any schedule/nationalized bank at Jaipur and be permitted to take all steps for availing financial tieups and loans etc for it's proposed 12 story multi story building at plot Nos. "S"- 5 Kabir Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur from available financial institution sources and market including Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur etc. etc.

(v) That in order to future legal and proper running of the company, in accordance with law, either this Hon'ble court may issue appropriate directions or orders to convene legal and proper annual general meeting under Section 167of the Companies Act, 1956 relating to the company or/and may direct to issue such suitable direction thereto, to the company law board-respondent no.4; like first determining the shareholding of the each individual and other various categories of member, trust and individuals, and finalised the names of persons as shareholders and to determine number of shares held by each member to vote in A.G.M.; may also be directed to CLB the respondent no.4 who should first determine votable, legal and proper shareholdings so that proper business could be conducted in AGM under the companies Act, 1956/2013 under section 167 and it's further business be done accordingly.

(vi) Respondent no.2-Jaipur Nagar Nigam be directed to release approved building plans, approved vide BPC meeting dated 23-09-2013 in the name of company "Jaipur Investment Limited" without naming any individual and matter of strip of land surrender for 20 - ft KABIR MARG for road widening from S - 5 plot ad-measuring more than 217 sq.m. of land be kept in abeyance till disposal of the writ petition, and alternatively, if market price is paid which cost in market today, more than 4 crores of rupees then, such surrender could be there.

(vii) That building plan of other "S" - block plots "S"-"1" to "S-4" and "S"-"6" and S-78 be considered by the respondent without insisting on surrender of 20-feet strip of land for road widening; without following procedure prescribed by law like Land Acquisition Act (Old and New) since cent percent construction was allowed to such plots since 1960 itself by the then local authority urban Improvement Board established and approved shops can not be demolished in the name of surrender of strip of land as asked for vide annexure-9.

(viii) Since cent-per-cent-constructions was allowed to "S" block plots under orders of the year 1960, and decisions/order of 2002 of Respondent no - 1 to 3 is not practical to be implemented in respect of "S" block of plots since local market with running shops is there since 1960 after due and proper approval and cannot successfully and practicably implementable so as to undertake 20-20 feet further widening of KABIR MARG road on both sides of the road-where "D"-block plots are situated can be done, therefore the impugned order of 2002 be modified and limited with further addition that only one side where "D" numbers residential plots are located and these could be used for the development and widening of road KABIR MARG, BANK PARK, JAIPUR, by-lane construction on corner three side plots on road-side by-lane on corner plots like D-120, D-158, D-157 etc and road widening adjacent to plot D-158 KABIR MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR whose land was to be required to be surrendered in view of order dated 10-05-2002 could be undertaken but has not done so far despite passing of 10 years period;

(ix) and after completion of select widening and bye pass bye land construction and bye-lane construction work on KABIR MARG CORNOR PLOT, adjacent to "D-158" and "S-5" local authority had taken the strip of land for road widening; and now from petitioner company, owners of plot no.-5 on payment of amount at least equivalent to the amount, being asked for through their letter dated 31.10.2013, Annexure-2, which is more than L90,00,000 (ninety lakhs of rupees), which is being directed to be deposited now, as a condition precedent for giving/releasing approved building plans of plot no. "S - 5" KABIR MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR to the company.

(viii) Respondent nos.5, 6, 7 be restrained from dealing in any manner with petitioner's company's name and deal with any manner, any property including plot noS-5 KABIR MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR.

(ix) Any other order the Hon'ble courts deems fit and proper."

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel appearing for the caveator, purportedly appearing for a Company, namely Jaipur Investment Limited, stating that Shri Gaurav Jain and Shri Gaurav Mathur, claiming to be the members of the Company, do not have any right to represent the Company, as they are neither shareholders of the company, nor are holding any position as Directors. It is further stated that the company has not authorised petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely Shri Gaurav Jain and Shri Gaurav Mathur, to represent the Company. They are the owners of Plot Nos.S - 4A, which has no concern with Plot Nos. S - 4 and S - 5.

3. In order to verify whether Shri Gaurav Jain and Shri Gaurav Mathur, are the members of the Company, we asked learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to submit a proof thereof. He has relied upon an order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21.03.1990, passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.6/90, by which this Court had permitted Shri K.K. Jain, to make an application to the Company Law Board under Section 167of the Companies Act, to call for a general meeting of the Company for the purposes of reviving the Company, which had been struck off from the register of the Registrar of the Company. We are informed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that no such permission was granted by the Company Law Board.

4. In any case, we are not required to go into the issues raised in support of the prayers made in the writ petition, as we find that a Civil Suit No.364/2013 is pending between the Company and the private persons with regard to protection of the properties of the Company, and in which, the question of revival of the Company is also involved.

5. We do not propose any interference in the matter, as neither the petitioners, nor the caveator have been able to satisfy us with regard to the existence of the Company, and the right of Shri Gaurav Jain and Shri Gaurav Mathur, and for any matter, of any other person, to represent the Company.

6. Be that as it may, so far as the prayers of the writ petition are concerned alleging illegality in proposals and decision of Jaipur Development Authority of road widening and consequent reduction of area of the plots, we do not find that any representation was made by the petitioners for redressal of their grievances to the Jaipur Development Authority. The assertion that 100% coverage was allowed on Plot Nos. S- 4 and S-5, and that surrender of 20 feet road on either side, will take away the rights of plot holders of Plot Nos. S- 4 and S-5, w

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ill require necessary enquiry into the facts beginning from 1960 to 2004. The petitioners have not annexed nor relied on any santions to constructions and the extent of constructions on any of the plots represented by the petitioners to consider to grant any relief. 7. We also do not find any objection which may have been filed to the proposals, in pursuance to which a Notification dated 23.01.2000 was issued, amending the Master Plan, 2011, converting all the plots of both sides from Ganga Path crossing to Old Power House on Kabir Marg (Bani Park), from residential to commercial. 8. The writ petition, without making a representation providing detailed facts, and annexing necessary documents, both with regard to sanctioned plan and the constructions which have been raised on the plots, and in respect of which it is admitted that Plot No. S-5 is lying vacant, is not maintainable. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.