Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/18747/2007 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18747 of 2007
=========================================================
JASHWANTBHAI
BABABHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHAIRMAN,
BALASINOR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.HIREN
M MODI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NS DESAI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 03/09/2007
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr.H.M.Modi for the petitioner and learned advocate
Mr.N.S.Desai for respondent.
2. Learned
advocate Mr.Desai submitted that he has filed reply on behalf of
respondent to the petition which is at page-85. But, from the record,
it appears that reply not on record.
2.1 Mr.Desai
places on record the copy of affidavit in reply. The copy of
affidavit in reply is taken on record. Affidavit in rejoinder filed
by the petitioner is also taken on record.
3. The
petition is filed by the petitioner claiming retirement benefits from
the respondent Bank on the ground that no benefit is paid to the
petitioner by the respondent though Controlling Authority has passed
an order in his favour and amount of PF is also not paid to the
petitioner which comes to Rs.13,75,000/-. That according to
petitioner, in all he is entitled to Rs.22,18,080/- with 12% interest
from the respondents.
4. Considering
the facts that number if disputed question of facts are involved in
the present petition. The respondents referring the undertaking given
by the petitioner against the claim of one Mr.Milankumar. Various
proceedings filed between the parties including Mr.Milankumar.
5. It
is not a fit case wherein this Court can exercise discretion while
exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In this petition, no fundamental right of the
petitioner has been violated but, whatever claim made by the
petitioner against the respondent was disputed by the respondent
because of various proceedings pending against petitioner and one
Mr.Milankumar. One undertaking was given by the petitioner to the
bank against the loan of Rs.9 lac to be given to one Mr.Milankumar
but, according to Mr.Milankumar amount of Rs.9 lacs was not received
by him but the same is received by the petitioner and he has not
received a single pie from the aforesaid loan, so, there was some
dishonesty and misappropriation on the part of the petitioner as
alleged by one Mr.Milankumar who has obtained loan from the bank.
Criminal proceedings were also filed against the petitioner and one
Mr. Milankumar. Therefore, in such circumstances, disputed questions
of facts as well as law are involved in this petition and, therefore,
writ of remedy cannot be enforced because, after all, it is a
discretionary remedy (See : 2006-110-FLR-282 AP; 2006-II-LLJ 502;
1982-II-LLJ page 7; 2007-112 FLR 325 SC; 2007 (2) LLJ pg. 700].
6. In
light of the such disputed question of facts, this petition is not
entertained by this Court being a one reason.
7. The
second reason is that for claiming the benefit of PF, amount of
gratuity, encashment leave, the petitioner is having alternative
remedy to file recovery proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the
I.D.Act,1947 against the respondent bank. Therefore, petitioner is
having alternative remedy under the machinery of I.D.Act,1947 and,
therefore, the present petition is not entertained by this Court.
8. In
view of the above observations and directions, present petition is
disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J)
(vipul)
Top