Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ORS. versus PRAKASH CHANDRA ARYA

Decided
18 December 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 366 · 1996 INSC 1510

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 366, margin G

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, made on November 29, 1996 in G.A. No. 3616/96. We decline to go into the merits of the matter. Suffice it to state that pending appeal the Division Bench had declined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge appointing a Receiver. When the matter was mentioned in the Chief Court for early hearing, this Court passed an order on December 4, 1996 thus :

pp. 366–367, margin G

"Permission to make the Receiver a party respondent granted. Notice will go to the Receiver. Dasti service permitted. There will be an ad-interim order directing the Receiver not to part with the possession of the premises to anyone till further orders. List the

p. 367, margin B

matter on 18.12.1996."

p. 367, margin B

Parties have filed their .respective affidavits and counter- affidavits. The Receiver also was served but has not filed the affidavit . In the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants, they pointed out certain changes in the circumstances on the basis of which Shri Dipankar Gupta, learned senior counsel, sought to contend that there is a Memo of understanding before the BIFR in which one O.P. Mall and Associates undertook to revive the sick industry of the defendant-tenant. If the said agency is permitted to revive the sick industry to work under the direction and control of the Receiver, it may not cause any impediment to the interest of the respondent-landlord. The said stand was disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. In that view of the matter, we think that it may not be desirable at thfa stage to go into the question. It would be open to the parties to place the entire material before the Division Bench which would go into the matter on merits and decide according to law.

p. 367, margin C

In view of the fact that the industry requires to be revived, we think that it would be expedient that the appeal pending before the Division Bench is disposed of expeditiously. Accordingly, we request the learned Chief Justice to direct G.A. No. 3616/96 and the connected Appeal APOT No. 626/96 to be posted before appropriate Division Bench for final disposal preferably on any date between 6th January, 1997 and 9th January, 1997.

p. 367, margin F

The appeal is accordingly qisposed of. No. costs. T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.

p. 367, margin G