Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/687/2000 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 687 of 2000
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 215 of 1985
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 686 of 2000
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 216 of 1985
=========================================================
BANK
OF BARODA - Appellant(s)
Versus
DHARMISHTHABEN
SURESHCHANDRA SARIAYA & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DARSHAN M PARIKH for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR KM PATEL for
Respondent(s) : 1.2.1,1.2.2
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 10/01/2011
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
It was conceded at the
outset by learned counsel appearing on both sides that the third
appeal arising from the same judgment, being Letters Patent Appeal
No.689 of 2000 is disposed by order dated 30.4.2001, with the
direction that the impugned order is set aside as far as respondent
in that appeal was concerned. It was also submitted that, in the
present remaining two appeals, originally only one respondent in
each appeal was the concerned party, in so far as the impugned
judgment and order had operated only in respect of those respondents
and the respondent in the aforesaid appeal which is disposed. It was
further stated at the bar that in Letters Patent Appeal No.687 of
2000 legal heirs of the respondent have been brought on record and
the respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No.686 of 2000 has since
long retired. Thus, in short, admittedly the benefit of the impugned
judgment and order, quantified in a very small amount is already
paid to the original petitioner and even if the appeals were to be
allowed on merits, those amounts and benefits accorded to the
original petitioners could hardly be recovered, inspite of an
undertaking required to have been submitted by them under interim
order dated 4.12.2000 in Civil Application No.10213 of 2000.
Having regard to the
aforesaid facts and circumstances learned counsel Mr.D. M. Parikh
submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in
K.Thimmappa and others, Vs. Chairman Central Board of
Directors., SBI and another (AIR 2001 SC 467), the
impugned judgment was required to be set aside; whereas learned
Senior Counsel Mr.K.M.Patel submitted that if no recovery were to be
made, even if the impugned judgment were set aside, the Court may
not enter into the academic exercise of examining the merits of the
appeal. It was quite clear that recovery of the amounts or benefits
already paid to or availed by the original petitioner were not
recoverable at this stage and they were running into a very small
amount hardly reaching four figures; and the respondents were
agreeable to the Court clarifying that the impugned judgment shall
not be a precedent for any other case.
Therefore, the appeals
are disposed, without entering into merits and with the
clarification that the impugned judgment shall not be a precedent
for any other case and no amount shall be recovered from any of the
original petitioner – the respondents herein.
(D. H.
WAGHELA, J.)
(K. A. PUJ, J.)
kks
Top