Partners Of Firm Managing Lake Activities Trying To Stall Proceedings: Gujarat High Court Declines Impleadment In Vadodara Boat Capsize Case

While hearing a matter pertaining to the Vadodara boat capsize incident, Gujarat High Court on Friday (October 18) dismissed a plea moved by certain partners of Kotia Projects seeking impleadment, after noting that the "partners associated with the firm are trying to stall the proceedings" where the court was examining compensation to be given the victims from the "pocket of the partnership firm".The high court further noted that the partnership firm had been impleaded not by the name of any director/partner, "rather through the director/partner", adding that despite notice being issued to the firm over a month ago, it remained unrepresented. On January 18, 2024, a boat capsized in Harni Lake, resulting in the deaths of 12 children and two teachers who were on a school picnic. Private firm–M/s Kotia Projects was tasked with development of the lake project by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC). During the hearing on Friday, the advocate general appearing for the state informed a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi that in the last hearing the contractor was not present, so the matter had been kept today "particularly for this purpose". After the court inquired if the contractor was present today, a counsel said that notice to the respondent firm was served to Vineet Kotia who was his client. He however said that Vineet Kotia had retired from Kotia Projects in November 2020.At this stage the high court orally asked, "Do you have Vakalatnama to appear on his behalf?...this company that is M/s Kotia projects is impleaded in the writ petition, correct. Notice has been sent. We have not impleaded the director in his personal capacity but Kotia Project an an entity which will appear through the director. So, if you have any director's Vakalatnama, so appear. We are on the question of payment of compensation. If you are not appearing, we will proceed and decide the issue”.On his submission that his client had retired prior to the incident the court orally said that an affidavit should have been brought to the court on this point. On the court's query the counsel said that there was no registered retirement deed and sought some time. The high court however said that it would not grant an adjournment, while noting that there was neither an affidavit nor a registered retirement deed before it today. Meanwhile, another counsel submitted that he was appearing for four other partners of the firm seeking impleadment in the matter. The high court however orally remarked that it was not looking at individual partners nor was it deciding the rights of the partners, noting that the partnership firm was itself a legal entity. "We have (before us) partnership firm itself is a legal entity, correct. Whosoever is associated with the partnership firm has to come forward and file his response. Don't play this game. This is not a chessboard. We are not permitting you to do this. These oral instructions are not to be accommodated. We are not concerned with you...If you are making any submission, file Vakalatnama on behalf of M/s Kotia Projects. Till date there is no vakalatnama by anyone," the court orally said. Thereafter while dictating its order the high court noted the appearance of the counsel on behalf of Vineet Kotia, as well as his submission that he received instruction from his client stating that he was not the director rather a partner in the partnership firm and that he has retired from the partnership firm much before the incident in question.The court in its order then noted, "All these submissions made at the bar are not supported by any material on record in spite of due service of notice for about more than one month there is no response to this court. The prayer...cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there is nothing on record which would substantiate the contention of Mr Vineet Kotia...that he has no concern with the partnership firm...the partnership firm has been impleaded not by name of any director or partner. It is rather through the director/partner. Even if it is accepted for a moment that Mr Vineet Kotia has no concern with the partnership firm as on date, no other partner of the firm is appearing before us. No other partner has come forward to represent respondent no. 4 (firm). We therefore, hold that respondent no. 4 remains unrepresented in spite of receipt of notice of present PIL and therefore, proceed to decide the issue with the aid and assistance of the counsels appearing in the matter". With respect to the plea moved by four other partners seeking impleadment "in their individual capacity" the court said that when asked whether they were representing the firm, the court was informed that there are 13 partners in total and four of them cannot represent the partnership firm.Dismissing the plea for impleadment of the four partners, high court thereafter in its order said, "It may be noted that the application seeking for joining party by four...

Partners Of Firm Managing Lake Activities Trying To Stall Proceedings: Gujarat High Court Declines Impleadment In Vadodara Boat Capsize Case

Lovina B Thakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Lovina B Thakkar

Partners Of Firm Managing Lake Activities Trying To Stall Proceedings: Gujarat High Court Declines Impleadment In Vadodara Boat Capsize Case

Lovina B Thakkar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Lovina B Thakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers