Gujarat High Court High Court

N.L vs Secretary on 19 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
N.L vs Secretary on 19 February, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/6964/2005	 2/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6964 of 2005
 

 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
 

=============================================================
 

 
	 
		 
		 
	
	 
		 
	
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	

 
	 
		 
		 
	
	 
		 
	
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To be
			referred to the Reporter or not ?
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	

 
	 
		 
		 
	
	 
		 
	
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	

 
	 
		 
		 
	
	 
		 
	
	  
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	

 
	 
		 
		 
	
	 
		 
	
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	

 

=============================================================
  

 

N.L.
DUBASIA & 1 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

SECRETARY
& 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Petitioner(s) : 2, 
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Respondent(s) :
1.2.1,1.2.2  
MR AMAR N BHATT for Respondent(s) : 2, 
M/S TRIVEDI
& GUPTA for Respondent(s) :
3, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/02/2010
 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

1.0 By
way of present petition, the petitioners
have prayed for the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners
in Special Civil Application No.1472 of 2003 filed before this Court.
It would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant relief clauses of
the said petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.1472 of 2003, as
under :

8(A) The
respondents Nos.2 and 3 may be directed by a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, direction or order to reply the amount
deposited by the petitioner
in FCNR Accounts with the State Bank of India from the year 1979
onwards at the rate of reconversion prevailing on the original date
of deposit from the date of deposit;

(B)
To direct the respondents namely Reserve Bank of India and State
Bank of India to reconvert the amount of principal and interest
thereon dealing to the petitioners
at the exchange rate of Rs.13.07 per US$ that was adopted on the date
of conversion i.e. on 7.4.1998 as the notional rate of exchange and
to make it transferable outside India;

(C)
To direct respondent No.2 Reserve Bank of India, in case of NRE
Rupee deposit with other Banks as per the Ann.’A’ dt.22.4.1988.

(i)
To pay the difference amounts resulting from the proportional
adjustments to the exchange rates that existed on the dates of
remittances and the date of releases.

(ii)
to pay interest thereon at 24% p.a. Compounded quarterly till the
dates of repayment and;

(iii)
to make all these amounts transferable outside India at the current
exchange rates.

(D)
To Award such amount of interest on the aforesaid amount as may be
required in the in the interest of justice.

2.0 During
the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents have drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of
the Supreme Court reported in C.Jacob v. Director of Geology
and Mining and
another, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115 as well
as a decision of this Court in the case of Patan Taluka Muman’s
Cattle Breeding and Milk Supplying
reported in 1996(2) GLH 752,
and have submitted that in light of the observations made by the Apex
Court as well as this Court in the above cited decisions, the present
petition is required to be rejected.

3.0 Having
heard the petitioner-Party-In-Person
as well as the learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties and perusing the above
cited decisions, I am of the opinion that the case of the respondents
is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions and, therefore, no
interference is called for at the hands of this Court. Hence, in
light of the observations made by the Apex Court as well as this
Court in the above cited decisions, the present petition is required
to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged
with no order as to costs. The interim relief, if any, stands hereby
vacated.

(K.S.

Jhaveri, J)

Aakar

   

Top