Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/18793/2005 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18793 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
NIKHIL
NATWARLAL MEHTA & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAJPIPLA
NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SHIRISH JOSHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
MR SN THAKKAR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
BJ TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR JT TRIVEDI for Respondent(s)
: 1,
MS JIGNASA B TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR DP KINARIWALA for Respondent(s)
: 3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 19/10/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set
aside the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative
Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Appeal
No.764/2004 dated 02.09.2005, whereby, the said appeal was dismissed.
2. The
respondent no.1-Bank is an urban co-operative bank governed by the
Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1963. Petitioner no.1 herein is
the Chairman, whereas, petitioner no.2 is the Managing Director.
Petitioner no.3 is the Director of respondent no.1-Bank.
3. On
06.10.2001 the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State
removed the Board of Directors of respondent no.1-Bank and appointed
a custodian. However, the same was, subsequently, stayed by the
competent authority. Thereafter, respondent no.4 filed a writ
petition before this Court against respondent no.1-bank for taking
over charge back from the custodian. The said petition was disposed
of by this Court with a direction to the Board of Directors to hand
over charge to the custodian back. Thereafter, a Resolution was
passed in the custodian committee to file a suit to recover
Rs.20,000/- from the petitioners in pursuance of which Lavad Case
No.1194/2003 came to be filed before the Board of Nominees, Vadodars.
The said Lavad Case was decreed against the petitioners vide award
dated 18.10.2004.
4. Being
aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners filed appeal before the
Tribunal, which came to be rejected vide impugned order. Hence, this
petition.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It appears that the payments in question were made by the
petitioners under a bona fide belief and in the interest of the
Society. There does not appear to be any mala fide intention on the
part of the petitioners to misappropriate the funds. Hence, in my
opinion, the petitioner could not be punished with ‘disqualification’
under the Act since it appears to be a bona fide mistake on the part
of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be penalized by
disqualifying them as the act appears to have been done in good faith
and in the interest of the petitioners.
6. In
view of the above, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned
orders passed by the Tribunal as also the Board of Nominees, Vadodara
are quashed and set aside. The petitioners will not be considered as
‘disqualified’ under the Act. The Society concerned is permitted to
withdraw the amount lying before the Tribunal or the authority
concerned, as the case may be and the payment shall be made by way of
a cheque. With the above observation and direction, the petition
stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no
order as to costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top