1. In present petition Mrs. Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has made submissions.
2. It is necessary to note that present petition was listed for hearing on 11.1.2012 and when next date for hearing was about to be scheduled Mr.Gandhi one of the shareholders who appears as party-in-person opposed the request of the petitioner to schedule 12.1.2012 and next date of hearing on the ground that it would be inconvenient for him to stay back or come back to Ahmedabad for hearing on 12.1.2012 or 13.1.2012. He also submitted that due to certain difficulties it would not be possible for him to attend hearing in the week beginning from 16.1.2012. Therefore, while scheduling the date of hearing on 13.1.2012 said Mr. Gandhi who appears as party-in-person was allowed to submit his written arguments considering the fact that he has already filed an affidavit opposing the petition. It was informed to him that his submissions will be taken into consideration along with his affidavit. For the said purpose he was allowed time to forward the written submissions by 13.1.2012. However submissions were not received on 13.1.2012 hence, proceedings were adjourned to 16.1.2012 and then to 17.1.2012 and then to 18.1.2012. Thus, three adjournments after scheduling date for submission of written arguments were granted to the applicant, however his written submissions were not received. So as to afford further opportunity to the party-in-person the hearing was adjourned to 23.1.2012. On the said date i.e. 23.1.2012 the Registry placed on record the written submissions forwarded by said Mr. Gandhi, who appears as party - in - person which appears to have been received in the Registry on 21.1.2012.
3. The above mentioned aspects are recorded in the order dated 18.1.2012 and in the order dated 23.1.2012. One days time was allowed to the learned advocate for the petitioner to consider the written submissions, more particularly because the petition could be taken up for hearing almost in closing hours for the said day's session. Subsequently, the learned advocate for the petitioner has made submissions particularly on 24.1.2012, on 1.2.2012, on 3.2.2012 and today i.e. 6.2.2012.
4. Today, i.e. 6.2.2012 learned advocate for the Regional Director has also made submissions.
5. Though, above referred Mr. Gandhi, who appears as party - in - person has raised objection against the proposed scheme has already filed affidavit placing on record his objections and justifications in his support then in view of the order dated 11.1.2012 he has also filed written arguments which are taken on record and that therefore, as submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is no need or justification to grant further opportunity for personal hearing to Mr.Ganghi, who appears as party - in - person, the Court considers it appropriate to allow one more opportunity to Mr. Gandhi, to make submissions if he so desires. The Court has taken note of the fact and the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner that after 11.1.2012 said Mr. Gandhi has not appeared during the scheduled hearing.
6. For the aforesaid purpose the hearing of present petition is adjourned to 14.2.2012. The Registry shall forward intimation about the said date to the respondent at the address mentioned by him in the written arguments filed on 18.1.2012 and received on 21.1.2012, by R.P.A.D. as well as by courier.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh*
-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%">Suresh*