Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/137/2007 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR RESTORATION No. 137 of 2007
=========================================================
DHRUV
CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD - Applicant(s)
Versus
GURUMIL
SINGH NAVRANG SINGH SIKH & 7 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR PRAKASH
K JANI for Opponent(s) : 1,
MR H.S.MULIA for Opponent(s) : 2,
None
for Opponent(s) : 3 - 5, 7,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent(s) :
6,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 08/02/2007
ORAL
ORDER
The
Special Civil Application No. 16998/2004 came to be dismissed for
want of prosecution by order dated 4th October, 2006
which reads as follows :
?SThis
petition was heard extensively by this Court on more occasions than
one. Learned advocate Ms. Qureshi for Shri Pritesh L.Parikh for
petitioner was heard at length. Learned advocate Shri Jani was also
heard. Eventually, the petition was adjourned at the request of
learned advocate for the petitioner to make additional submissions.
Thereafter also matter was adjourned from time to time. Today note
is given by learned advocate Shri Pritesh Parikh in which it is
stated that the petitioner has taken away papers from him and he
would, therefore like to retire from the matter. His request is
granted.
In
fact on 27th September, 2006, when this matter was last on
board, one Shri B.M.Patel, claiming to be Managing Director of
petitioner society had mentioned before the Court that he would be
requesting his learned advocate to retire from the matter and he
would be pursuing the petition himself.
Today
said Shri B.M.Patel is not present before the Court. One Shri Pravin
Patel claiming to be brother of Shri B.M.Patel states that Shri
B.M.Patel is not present due to his personal reasons.
Though
I am inclined to permit the learned advocate for the petitioner to
retire from the matter, I am not inclined to adjourn the matter any
longer.
Under
the circumstances, in absence of any representation from the
petitioner, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Rule
is discharged. Interim relief vacated.??
This
Misc. Civil Application has been filed purported to be on behalf of
the original petitioner seeking restoration of Special Civil
Application.
Normally,
restoration of a matter is liberally granted by this Court and would
be under normal circumstances a matter of course. In the present
case however, it was not clear whether Shri B.M. Patel who has
sought restoration at the behest of the petitioner-society had the
authority to seek such restoration. Previously, therefore, when Shri
B.M. Patel had appeared before this Court on 25th
January, 2007 in person, I had explained to him about the doubt I
had in my mind about his authority to represent the society and to
seek restoration of the matter. He had therefore, prayed for time
which was granted upto 8th February, 2007 to produce
necessary material showing his authority to represent the
petitioner-society. Accordingly, he has produced a document titled
as ?SFinal argument list of events?? along with which he has also
produced certain documents on which reliance is sought to be placed.
He
contends that he is a recovery officer appointed by AGM of the
petitioner-society and he is duly authorised by the resolution of
the society to represent the society in the litigation.
Learned
advocate Shri P.K. Jani appearing on advance copy on behalf of
respondent no.3 pointed out the contents of affidavit in reply dated
7th February, 2007 filed by the said respondent stating
that the Cooperation Department of the Government of Gujarat has
appointed an Administrator to administer the affairs of the Society
under Section 81 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act and that
therefore, Shri B.M. Patel is not competent to file the application
seeking restoration.
Though
affidavit in rejoinder has been filed by Shri B.M. Patel to the said
affidavit filed by respondent no.3, this factual aspect has not been
denied. Fact therefore, remains that currently the affairs of the
society are in the hands of the administrator. It may be as stated
by Shri B.M.Patel that the society has preferred an appeal against
the appointment of administrator, but as admitted by him no stay has
been granted.
In
my opinion, therefore, Shri B.M.Patel neither has any authority to
represent the petitioner-society or to seek restoration of the
petition. Only on that ground, Misc. Civil Application is rejected.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top