Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/719/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 719 of 2010
=========================================================
GUJARAT
STATE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHIKHLI
TALUKA SAHAKARI RUPANTAR ANE VECHAN KARNARI MANDLI L - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DIPEN A DESAI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SN THAKKAR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 03/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. I
have heard Mr.Dipen A. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner. It
is submitted by him that there is no privity of contract between the
petitioner and the parties from whom the various amounts are due, and
it has been agreed between the petitioner and respondent No.1, that
the sale proceeds would be realised by respondent No.1, and credited
to the account of the petitioner.
2. On
the other hand, Mr.S.N.Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1
disputes this position and states that it is the petitioner who was
responsible for recovering the sale proceeds from the parties and the
respondent No.1 was acting upon the instructions of the
petitioner-Federation.
3. From
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective
parties, it appears that the undisputed position is that the
petitioner has approached the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad by way of
Lavad Suit No.1164/2000, for recovery of an amount of
Rs.10,63,131=38Ps. It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner-Federation did not have a godown of its own and it
requested the respondent-Society to provide its godown for storing
food-grains and other goods of the petitioner Federation. It is
further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-Federation
would not be required to pay rent of the godown, but a commission of
1% would be paid to the respondent No.1, as and when the sale of
goods takes place by the said respondent and the amount is realised.
Further, the petitioner contends that it was mutually agreed between
it and respondent No.1 that recovery of the amounts of sale proceeds
would be done by the respondent No.1-Society, and it would be the
duty of the said respondent-Society to see that the said amounts
would be paid to the petitioner-Federation. This is the crux of the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. On
the other hand, the case of the respondent-Society is that the
petitioner has appointed its own employees as representatives for
sale and/or purchase of agricultural goods on cash/credit basis and,
therefore, the liability to recover the amounts due from the
purchasers was that of the petitioner, and not of respondent No.1.
5. The
Lavad Suit filed by the petitioner has been decreed in its favour,
but the judgment and decree passed by the Board of Nominees has been
set aside in appeal, by the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. Both
parties have relied extensively upon various documents in support of
their respective stands.
6. Having
heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having given
thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them, at this
stage, various issues have been raised by both sides, which require
deeper consideration. There are some disputed issues on both sides
and looking to the nature of the case and the arguments of the rival
parties, the matter requires deeper consideration.
7. While,
issuing notice on 29.01.2010, this Court (Coram:Jayant Patel, J.),
passed the following order:
1.
Notice returnable on 10.2.2010. Mr.Thakkar, learned
Counsel for the respondent, waives service of notice.
2. By
ad-interim order, it is observed and directed that the amount, if
any, deposited in the execution proceedings shall not be permitted to
be withdrawn to either side.
8. In
view of the above, Rule be issued, making it returnable on
15.06.2010. Mr.S.N.Thakkar, learned counsel waves service of notice
of Rule for respondent No.1.
9. The
ad-interim order passed earlier is confirmed, and shall continue till
the final decision of the petition.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
~gaurav~
Top