SCA/7774/2005 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7774 of 2005 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7775 of 2005 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7776 of 2005 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7777 of 2005 ========================================================= GENERAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus S.R.M. INDUSTRIES & 5 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : (MR PV NANAVATI) for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR SN THAKKAR for Respondent(s) : 2, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 3 - 6. None for Respondent(s) : 5, UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Respondent(s) : 5.2.1 MR PRASHANT MANKAD for Respondent(s) : 5.2.2 MR JAGDISH H MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 5.2.2 MR MA BUKHARI for Respondent No.7 in Special Civil Application Nos.7776 and 7777 of 2005. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 23/06/2008 COMMON ORAL ORDER
All
these petitions are filed by the petitioner-General Cooperative Bank
Ltd. challenging the order dated 30th November 2004
passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal.
Appeal
Nos.277 of 1998, 588 of 1998 and 589 of 1998 filed by the
petitioner-Bank were dismissed, whereas the Appeal No.573 of 1998
was allowed qua the appellant and the order dated 14th
August 1988 passed in Lavad Case No.3679 of 1985 by the Board of
Nominees was quashed.
Heard
Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for petitioner. Mr.Nanavati
could not dislodge the finding recorded by the Board of Nominees to
the effect that from the old partnership firm -defendant no.1, the
defendant nos.5 and 6 had retired and this fact was intimated to the
petitioner Bank. Besides, the document of the partnership was also
given to the petitioner-Bank. That the defendant no.4 had entered in
that partnership firm as a new partner. Even this fact was also
intimated to the petitioner-Bank.
The
Board of Nominees has recorded in terms that the petitioner-Bank had
passed the resolution to take note of the change in partnership.
In
view of these categorical findings recorded by the Board of Nominees
and confirmed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, which the
petitioner-Bank has not been able to dislodge, these petitions fail.
The same are dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if
any, stands vacated. No order as to costs.
(Ravi R. Tripathi, J)
Aakar