Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8242/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8242 of 2010
======================================
RAVJIBHAI
MEPABHAI BARIYA & 2 - Petitioners
Versus
THE
REGISTRAR ( CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES) & 2 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance :
MS
MEENA VYAS for the Petitioners.
None for the
Respondents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 20/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1 By
way of this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate
writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned
order dated 18/02/2010 passed by Gujarat State Co-Operative Tribunal,
Ahmedabad in Misc.Application No.215 of 2009, by which, the learned
Tribunal has dismissed the said application and has not condoned the
delay of 3 years, 9 months and 15 days in preferring the Appeal
against the judgement and order passed by the learned Board of
Nominees.
2. At
the outset, it is required to be noted that it is specific case on
behalf of the petitioners before the Tribunal that the petitioners
came to know about the judgement and decree passed by learned Board
of Nominees only when the petitioners were served with the last
notice dated 03/07/2009 and, therefore, it was sought to be submitted
that the Appeal is within limitation. Learned Tribunal after
considering the reply filed on behalf of the Bank, has found that the
petitioners were already served with the earlier recovery notice
dated 30/06/2006 issued by Recovery Officer of the Bank, in which,
there is specific reference of Suit and award declared by the Board
of Nominees and amount paid by the petitioners under the aforesaid
award and thus, it was found that the petitioners have not stated
correct facts before the Tribunal and have tried to explain delay by
making incorrect statement. Considering the above, it cannot be said
that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in dismissing the
application and not condoning the delay of 3 years, 9 months and 15
days.
3. As
observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision dated
03/11/2008 rendered in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs.
V/s. Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project reported
in 2008(0) GLHEL-SC 42331, incorrect statement made in
application seeking condonation of delay itself is sufficient to
reject application without any further inquiry.
4. In
view of the above, there is no substance in the present petition,
which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top