Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5234/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5234 of 2008
=========================================================
VAGHJI
SHAMJI THACKER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
CH VORA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR VINAY PANDYA, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR
AK CLERK for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 22/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner-Proprietor of Mahesh Handicrafts is before this Court
complaining that respondent no.3-Gujarat Industrial Cooperative Bank
Ltd. has not accorded the benefits declared by the Reserve Bank of
India by Circular dated 20th February 2001, as was
required to be given to the petitioner being an affected Unit by the
earthquake of January-2001.
Mr.C.H.
Vora, learned advocate for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that
respondent no.3-Bank has not given the benefit of charging the
simple interest to the petitioner. Instead the respondent no.3 has
charged compound interest.
Mr.A.K.
Clerk, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.3-Bank, invited
attention of the Court to the averments made in the
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no.3, wherein it is
specifically submitted that :
?S15.
.. .. The answering respondent had re-checked the calculation of
interest in the account of the petitioner and it was found that for
the period from 29.1.02 to 4.6.02 compound interest was charged.
Therefore, an amount of Rs.744/- being the difference between the
compound interest and simple interest was credited in the account of
petitioner on 24.2.07 and thereafter the simple interest has been
calculated. .. ..??
In
view of aforesaid averments in the affidavit-in-reply, the question
becomes disputed question of facts which this Court cannot go into
while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The present petition, therefore, fails. The same is
dismissed. Notice is discharged.
Mr.C.H.
Vora, learned advocate appearing for petitioner, requests that it be
clarified that the dismissal of this petition on account of
involvement of disputed questions of facts may not prejudice the
right of the petitioner to agitate the said question before an
appropriate authority/Court.
It
goes without saying that the petitioner will be at liberty to
agitate this question before appropriate forum/ Court and his right
does not get prejudiced by dismissal of this petition.
(Ravi
R. Tripathi, J)
Aakar
Top