Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4922/2003 1/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4922 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
VIJAY
CO OP BANK LTD. THRO. GENERAL MANAGER P.J.KADAKIA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
VASUMATIBEN
MANSINGJI RATHOD - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DINESH KAPADIA FOR MR HARIN P RAVAL
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED BY
DS for Respondent(s) : 1.2.1,1.2.3
MS AMRITA M THAKORE for
Respondent(s) : 1.2.1
MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1.2.2
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 04/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
short facts of the case appear to be that as per the petitioner Bank
the loan was granted to one M/s.R.R.Dwivedi & Co., and the
deceased Mansing Devubhai Rathod stood as the guarantor. As the
loan amount was not paid, the petitioner Bank filed civil suit
before the learned Nominee being Lavad Case No.817 of 1988. It is
the case of the petitioner that the summons was served to the
deceased Mansing, but he did not appear thereafter. Ultimately, the
learned Nominee passed the judgement and award on 29.5.1999, whereby
the claim of the Bank was allowed. It appears that thereafter the
deceased Mansing Devubhai Rathod expired and his legal heirs in the
month of March, 2000 preferred appeal together with the application
for condonation of delay. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the
appeal and remanded the matter to the learned Nominee. It is under
these circumstances the petitioner Bank has approached this Court by
the present petition.
Heard
Mr.Dinesh Kapadia for Mr.Raval, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
It
appears from the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, that on merits,
Tribunal found a good case to be considered on the aspects of
membership of the deceased on the relevant date when the transaction
of loan was entered into and also the aspect as to whether there was
any misuse of powers by the office-bearers of the Bank or not.
Therefore, the Tribunal exercised the discretion and set aside the
award passed by the learned Nominee and remanded the matter. The
perusal of the reasons recorded by the Tribunal shows that it cannot
be said that there is any error committed by the Tribunal on the
face of record or that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is
perverse, which may attract the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The
learned Counsel for the petitioner alternatively submitted that let
the suit be ordered to be decided within a reasonable time, since
the suit is of 1988 and the matter is pending for a long time.
Hence,
it is directed that the learned nominee shall decide the suit as
early as possible, preferably within one year from the date of
receipt of the order of this Court. The interim injunction qua the
property of deceased Mansing Devubhai Rathod, which was granted by
the learned Nominee, shall continue until the suit is finally
disposed of.
Subject
to the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition fails.
Rule discharged.
4.2.2010
(Jayant Patel, J.)
vinod
Top