Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2157/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2157 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5873 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 10637 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2157 of 2010
=========================================================
RAJAN
MOHANLAL SHAH THROUGH POA BINDUKUMAR MOHANLA - Appellant(s)
Versus
DY.GENERAL
MANAGER & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DILIP B RANA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
DR MAHESH THAKAR for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MS
MONA N TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 24/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
The appellant has
called into question order dated 11.05.2010 of learned single Judge
in Special Civil Application No.5873 of 2010, wherein the case of
the holder of power of attorney of the original petitioner was
referred to the Bar Council of Gujarat on account of his being a
practising advocate and the petition was dismissed with cost,
denying the relief of due settlement of the petitioner’s account.
The original dispute appears to have arisen from deduction of the
sum of Rs.2,98,004.74 ps. from the terminal benefits due to the
appellant. It was sought to be asserted that the aforesaid amount
was rightly deducted and withheld by the respondent – bank.
Having heard learned
counsel on both sides and there being a limited consensus arrived at
during the course of arguments, it is not relevant or necessary to
relate the factual matrix in which dispute about the aforesaid
amount had arisen. It was proposed by learned senior advocate,
Mr.S.B.Vakil, appearing for the appellant that without claiming at
this stage reversal of the order by which the aforesaid amount was
deducted from the account of the appellant, and without inviting any
show-cause notice, the appellant would make a clear and concise
representation before respondent No.1 and it may be decided within a
reasonable period for satisfactory resolution of the dispute within
the bank itself. As against that, learned counsel, Dr.Mahesh Thakar,
fairly conceded that the respondent had not sought any proceeding
against the advocate who held the power of attorney of the
appellant, and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the respondent, they would have no objection to deciding such
representation as may be made by the appellant, in respect of the
disputed amount. He fairly stated that if the amount in dispute were
required to be paid in accordance with law and the rules applicable
to the bank, and the proposed representation of the appellant is
decided in favour of the appellant, there will not be any further
unnecessary round of litigation. Similarly, if the decision on the
proposed representation goes against the appellant, but contains
valid and sufficient reasons, the appellant would have no occasion
to carry the matter further.
Thus, admittedly, the
parties having adopted the better method of resolving the dispute
among them, the impugned order would come in their way and,
therefore, required to be set-aside by consent and without entering
into merits or the rights and contentions of the parties.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated
11.5.2010 in Special Civil Application No.5873 of 2010 is set-aside
by consent, and in terms of the consensus, the appellant is directed
to make his representation either by himself or through his power of
attorney to respondent No.1, who shall decide such representation
within a period of one month after receipt thereof and communicate
the decision by RPAD to the appellant. With this order, the appeal
as well as the application are disposed with no order as to costs.
(D.H.WAGHELA,
J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top