{"id":228400,"date":"2011-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011"},"modified":"2016-12-16T16:24:12","modified_gmt":"2016-12-16T10:54:12","slug":"anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/6513\/2008\t 22\/ 22\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6513 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6455 of 2008\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6456 of 2008 \n\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6570 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6662 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6965 of 2008\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6966 of 2008 \n\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 7161 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 7166 of 2008\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 7168 of 2008 \n\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 7233 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8926 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9314 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9681 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nANUBHAI\nHAMIRBHAI KHASIYA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSHREE\nKODINAR TALUKA CO OP BANKING UNION LTD & 4 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHR PRAJAPATI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR CHINTAN S POPAT for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone\nfor Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. \nMR KL PANDYA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 4\n(in all the matters), \nMS ARCHANA U AMIN for Respondent(s) :\n5, \n=========================================================\n\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
As
\n\tin all the petitions common questions arise for consideration they
\n\tare being considered by this common judgement.  The learned Counsel
\n\tfor both the sides are heard for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
All
\n\tthe petitioners are the agriculturists, who had taken agricultural
\n\tloans from the respondent Bank namely; Shree Kodinar Taluka Coop.
\n\tBanking Union Ltd.  It appears that the loan was not fully paid and,
\n\ttherefore, the procedure was undertaken by the respondent Bank for
\n\trecovery of the amount in certain cases<\/p>\n
It
\n\tappears that the Scheme was declared by the Central Government known
\n\tas Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 (hereinafter
\n\treferred to as the  Scheme ) and as per the said Scheme certain
\n\tdebts of the agriculturists are to be given relief.  In respect to
\n\tthe loans to the farmers through Cooperative Banks or through
\n\tCooperative Societies the scheme is to be regularised by Reserve
\n\tBank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘RBI’) or National Bank
\n\tfor Agriculture of Rural Department (hereinafter referred to as
\n\t‘NABARD’).  However, it appears that since the details of the scheme
\n\twere immediately not communicated to the respondent Bank, it
\n\tproceeded for recovery of the amount by resorting to the provisions
\n\tof the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as
\n\tthe ‘Act’) for recovery of the amount as per the award or as per the
\n\trecovery certificate, as the case may be.  The respondent Bank also
\n\tproceeded for attachment of the land of the concerned agriculturists
\n\tand in certain cases the auction was also held.  At that stage, all
\n\tthe petitioners, except petitioners of Special Civil Applications
\n\tNo.8926 and No.9314 of 2008, had challenged the said auction on the
\n\tpart of the Bank for recovery of the amount by auctioning the
\n\tproperty of the petitioners and others and with other prayers.  This
\n\tCourt initially had directed for not to finalize the auction and,
\n\ttherefore, as a result thereof, the offer of the auction purchaser
\n\tremained as it is and no further steps were taken.  Ultimately, this
\n\tCourt, vide order dated 9.5.2008, after hearing both the sides, had
\n\tdirected the petitioner to deposit certain percentage of the
\n\toutstanding dues by providing different time periods and so far as
\n\tthe auction held by the Bank in respect to the properties of the
\n\tdebtors are concerned, direction was also given to the concerned
\n\tagriculturists to pay additionally the interest at the rate of 8%
\n\tper annum.  The relevant direction to that aspect shall be referred
\n\tto at later stage.  It appears that thereafter the petitioners,
\n\tbarring petitioners of SCA Nos.8926 and 9314 of 2008, carried the
\n\tmatter by preferring Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench
\n\tin LPA No.567 of 2008 and allied matters and in the said LPA, one of
\n\tthe contentions raised on behalf of the respondent Bank was that the
\n\tscheme is not applicable to the debts of the petitioners and,
\n\ttherefore, the Division Bench took the views that the question of
\n\tapplicability of the scheme was required to be decided prior to
\n\tdirecting the concerned agriculturists to deposit the amount and,
\n\ttherefore, the matter has been remanded back to this Court. The
\n\tpertinent aspect is that so far as the auction held pending the
\n\tproceedings are concerned, it was also observed by the Division
\n\tBench as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 The
\n\tappellants are also held liable to pay interest on the amounts
\n\tdeposited by the auction purchasers from the respective dates of the
\n\tdeposits till the date on which the learned Single Judge decides the
\n\tpetitions, at such rate as may be decided by the learned Single
\n\tJudge.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,
\n\tthe liability to pay interest to the auction purchaser on the
\n\tamount, which was deposited by the respective auction purchasers for
\n\tparticipating in the auction of the property of the concerned
\n\tpetitioners is not modified by the Division Bench.  Under these
\n\tcircumstances, the present petitions have come up for consideration
\n\tbefore this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tMr.Prajapati, Mrs.Sangeeta Pahwa and Mr.Prachhak, learned  Counsel
\n\tappearing for the respective petitioners, Mr.Ashish Shah for
\n\tMr.Popat, learned Counsel in all the petitions for respondent No.1
\n\tBank, Mr.Raval, learned Counsel for the concerned Respondent,
\n\tMs.Archana Amin, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 Bank,
\n\tMr.Pandya, learned AGP for the Government Authorities and Mr.Dagli,
\n\tlearned Counsel for respondent No.4 in Special Civil Application
\n\tNo.9314 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tappears from the scheme read with the affidavit-in-reply filed on
\n\tbehalf of NABARD   respondent No.5 herein that the scheme applies
\n\tto all agricultural debts, which remained unpaid as on 28.2.2008.
\n\tThe definition speaks for various loans namely; Direct Agricultural
\n\tLoans, Short Term Production Loan, Investment Loan, etc.  The scheme
\n\tis available to marginal and small farmers and other farmers.  The
\n\tdefinition of the marginal farmers provide for holding of the land
\n\tup to 1 hectare (2.5 acres), for small farmers, it provides for
\n\tholding of the land  more than 1 hectare, but up to 2 hectares (5
\n\tacres) and for other farmers, it has been provided for holding of
\n\tthe land more than 2 hectares (more than 5 acres), which may include
\n\tall the farmers irrespective of their holding in the category of
\n\tother farmers.  It is true that as per the scheme different
\n\ttreatment is to be given for disbursement and set off of the debts
\n\tby extending relief through Central Government in respect of the
\n\tmarginal farmers or small farmers or other farmers, but in view of
\n\tthe scope provided under the Scheme, it is difficult to accept the
\n\tcontention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 Bank that
\n\tthe scheme is not applicable to the debts of the petitioners, who
\n\tare admittedly agriculturists and the transaction of the loan
\n\tpertains to the category of the direct agricultural loans or short
\n\tterm production loan or the investment loan, as covered in the
\n\tscheme.  The aforesaid is apparent from the scope of the scheme,
\n\twhich, inter alia, provides at 2.1 as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 2.1\t\tThe
\n\tscheme will cover direct agricultural loans extended to ‘marginal
\n\tand small farmers’ and ‘other farmers’ by Scheduled Commercial
\n\tBanks, Regional Rural Banks, Cooperative Credit Institutions
\n\t(including Urban Cooperative Banks) and Local Area Banks
\n\t(hereinafter referred to compendiously as ‘lending institutions’) as
\n\tindicated in the Guidelines.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tobserved earlier if all the categories of the farmers are
\n\tconsidered, it would also include the farmers holding the
\n\tagricultural lands exceeding 2 hectares, which would mean all the
\n\tfarmers since the upper limit of holding of the agricultural lands
\n\thas not been provided to exclude certain farmers in the category of
\n\tother farmers .  It is not the case of the respondent Bank that
\n\tthe loans were not pertaining to the agricultural loans or short
\n\tterm production loans or investment loans.  It is also an admitted
\n\tposition that the loans were granted by the bank, which is a
\n\tcooperative credit institution.  Under these circumstances, it
\n\tcannot be said that the scheme is not applicable to the petitioners,
\n\twho are farmers and who obtained agricultural loans from the
\n\trespondent No.1 Bank and, therefore, the said contention of the
\n\tlearned Counsel for the respondent No.1 Bank deserves to be rejected
\n\tand hence, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tper the scheme, various modalities have been provided for
\n\timplementation of the scheme.  The cut-off date for calculating the
\n\teligibility amount can be gathered from paragraph 4.1(A) as well as
\n\t(B), which speak for amounts remaining unpaid or over due until
\n\tFebruary 29, 2008.  It is also an admitted position that the amounts
\n\tin respect to the loans of the petitioners, may be by way of the
\n\taward or by way of recovery certificate of the competent authority,
\n\twere unpaid or they were over due.  Therefore, if the scheme is to
\n\tapply and the debts of the petitioners are to be covered in the
\n\tscheme, it will be required by the respondent No.1 Bank to give the
\n\tsame treatment to all its agriculturist debtors and the petitioners
\n\twould fall in the same category of agriculturists’ status so as to
\n\tclaim the benefits of the scheme as floated by the Central
\n\tGovernment.  Therefore, the consequence would be that the
\n\tpetitioners would be entitled for the benefits of the scheme
\n\tpertaining to the debts in question, which are subject matter of the
\n\tpresent petition.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tnext aspect, which may be required to be considered is for examining
\n\tthe action on the part of the respondent No.1 Bank in proceedings
\n\tfor recovery of the amount and the consequence thereof, whether
\n\tshould be allowed to remain or if to be set aside or nullified, what
\n\tthe equitable considerations should prevail qua the parties, who
\n\thave acted in bonafide.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tappears that as per the respondent No.1 Bank, though the scheme was
\n\tfloated, it had no details, whereas it is the case of the
\n\tpetitioners that the scheme was also available to the respondent
\n\tNo.1 Bank and it had started extending benefits to the other
\n\tsimilarly situated agriculturists, in spite of the same, a different
\n\ttreatment was given in respect of the debts of the petitioners by
\n\tthe respondent No.1 Bank by proceeding with the recovery of the
\n\tamount.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tnormal circumstances, if the Bank, who is holding the award in its
\n\tfavour or recovery certificate in its favour, would be justified in
\n\tproceeding for recovery of the amount, unless there is any
\n\tprohibitory order of the competent forum known to law.  It is an
\n\tadmitted position that there were no prohibitory orders against the
\n\trespondent No.1 Bank in recovery of the amount.  Therefore, if the
\n\taction is taken for recovery of the amount, at least the same cannot
\n\tbe said as without any competence or jurisdiction or authority on
\n\tthe part of the respondent Bank.  May be that had the scheme in
\n\tdetail been well within the knowledge of the respondent No.1 Bank
\n\tand in spite of the same, it proceeded further, the action at the
\n\tmost could be said as unreasonable or arbitrary.  The petitioners,
\n\twho are admittedly defaulters of the loan transaction cannot pitch
\n\ttheir case beyond the same.  As it has happened in the present case,
\n\tthe Bank has proceeded for recovery of the amount by disposal of the
\n\tproperties by holding auction, but the fact remains that at the
\n\tinitial stage in respect of all the petitions, since the petitions
\n\twere filed at the later stage after holding of the auctions in
\n\tcertain cases, in certain cases auction was already held before the
\n\tmatter was considered by this Court, the direction was already given
\n\tnot to finalize the auction.  Therefore, the consequential result is
\n\tthat the auction was held, but not finalized.  It is only in cases
\n\tof Special Civil Application Nos.8926 and 9314 of 2008, since no
\n\tLetters Patent Appeal was preferred, the Bank proceeded for
\n\tfinalization of the auction and the respective auction purchaser has
\n\tpaid the remaining amount of the auction.  It is the case of the
\n\trespondent No.1 Bank as well as the auction purchaser in one of the
\n\tmatters represented through Mr.Dagli, learned Counsel that the sale
\n\tcertificates have been issued and the entry is also mutated in the
\n\trevenue record.  However, the fact remains that there is no
\n\tauthenticated record produced by either side to show that the
\n\tpossession of the lands concerned to Special Civil Application
\n\tNos.8926 of 2008 and 9314 of 2008 is handed over or that there are
\n\tadditional rights created by altering the situation thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tobserved earlier, if the scheme is floated by the Central Government
\n\tin respect of all agriculturists and the petitioners are the
\n\tpersons, who are covered by the said scheme and their debts are also
\n\trequired to be given the same treatment as per the scheme and when
\n\tas per the scheme, the cut-off date is 29.2.2008, it would not be a
\n\tcase to deprive the petitioners from the benefits of the scheme on
\n\tthe ground that the respondent No.1 Bank during the later period
\n\tproceeded for recovery of the amount or that the auction has been
\n\theld and in two cases the amount is fully paid by the auction
\n\tpurchaser.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tsuch this Court, when earlier considered the matter, vide order
\n\tdated 9.5.2008, it was, inter alia, observed that if the petitioners
\n\tare desirous to get the benefits of the scheme, it would be required
\n\tfor the petitioners to deposit the amount not less than the amount
\n\treceived by the Bank so as to protect the land plus interest at the
\n\trate of 8% per annum, so as to compensate the auction purchaser
\n\ttowards the loss of interest, in the event the matter was to be
\n\tconsidered for issuing directions to the Bank for refund of the
\n\tamount to the auction purchaser.  Thereafter, the directions were
\n\tgiven accordingly and as observed earlier, the Division Bench of
\n\tthis Court in Letters Patent Appeal has also not modified the said
\n\taspect of the liability of the concerned petitioners\/land holders to
\n\tpay interest for compensating to the auction purchaser, but it only
\n\tleft to the discretion of this Court about the rate of interest to
\n\tbe made payable.  In my view, interest at the rate of 8% per annum
\n\tcan be said as reasonable for compensating the auction purchaser,
\n\twho did part with the amount, may be acting in bonafide, for
\n\tparticipating at the auction and at the later stage, either the
\n\tauction is not finalized or if finalized, the same is set at naught
\n\tby this Court.  Even on equitable consideration also, the auction
\n\tpurchaser, if after acceptance of the auction, is to be told that
\n\tthe offer is not accepted or that the auction is to be cancelled, it
\n\twould be just and proper for the competent authority, who is to set
\n\taside the auction to reasonably compensate the auction purchaser,
\n\twho acted in bonafide.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tper the observations made hereinabove, since the petitioners are
\n\tfound as eligible and entitled for the benefits of the scheme, it
\n\twould be required for the respondent No.1 Bank to extend the
\n\tbenefits as per the Scheme to the respondent petitioners. If the
\n\tscheme is to operate in respect of the debts, which are subject
\n\tmatter of the petitions, there may not be any question for disposal
\n\tof the properties of the concerned agriculturists, at least until
\n\tthe default is made by concerned agriculturists in paying the amount
\n\tas per the scheme.  Therefore, if the date is taken as the basis, as
\n\twas prevailing on 29.2.2008, no useful purpose would be served in
\n\tallowing the auction to stand and thereby to deprive the auction
\n\tpurchaser from the land and it would be just and proper to set aside
\n\tthe auction in view of the present facts and circumstances and
\n\tconsequently to direct the respondent bank to refund the amount with
\n\tinterest at the rate of 8% per annum, but it will be required for
\n\tthe concerned petitioners, who is seeking cancellation of the
\n\tauction to bear the liability of the interest at the rate of 8% per
\n\tannum since the petitioners are desirous to protect the land and the
\n\taction of the Bank cannot be said as wholly without jurisdiction.
\n\tEven on the aspects of reasonableness, if the matter is examined the
\n\tpetitioners are defaulters of the loans and, therefore, if the
\n\tpayment has not been made and the bank has proceeded for recovery of
\n\tthe amount, such an action cannot be said as unreasonable, more
\n\tparticularly when as per the respondent Bank, all the details of the
\n\tscheme were not available or that the scheme was not applicable to
\n\tthe Bank or the debts of the petitioners.  In normal circumstances,
\n\tif the debtor is to save the property at the auction held for
\n\trecovery of the amount, the burden of bearing the liability to pay
\n\tthe interest, which is to be paid by way of compensation to the
\n\tauction purchaser at the ultimate setting side of the auction, is
\n\trequired to be passed over to the person, who is seeking the setting
\n\taside of the auction.  Considering the facts and circumstances, it
\n\tappears to the Court that the burden for bearing of the interest at
\n\tthe rate of 8% per annum for compensating to the auction purchaser
\n\tshall be required to be borne by the respective petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tobserved earlier, since the petitioners are found as covered by the
\n\tScheme and the debt which is subject matter of the petition is also
\n\tcovered by the Scheme, it will be required for the respondent Bank
\n\tto intimate the respective petitioners about the actual amount to be
\n\tpaid by the concerned petitioners for entitling the benefits of the
\n\tscheme and also the interest at the rate of 8% per annum, as
\n\tobserved earlier, on the amount deposited by the auction purchaser
\n\tfor participating at the auction or at the later stage by complying
\n\twith the conditions of the auction.  The bank may give reasonable
\n\ttime to the petitioners to deposit the amount and it will also be
\n\trequired to the bank to undergo the necessary formalities for
\n\tgetting the undertaking etc., as per the scheme and such formalities
\n\tmay be completed, in any case, before 30th September,
\n\t2008.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above, the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\t\tIt
\n\tis declared that the petitioners and the debts, which are subject
\n\tmatter of the petitions are covered by the Agricultural Debt Waiver
\n\tand Debt Relief Scheme 2008.  Consequently, the respondent No.1 Bank
\n\twould be required to extend the benefits as per the Scheme to the
\n\tconcerned petitioners and the concerned petitioner(s) shall be
\n\trequired to comply with the conditions for availing the benefits of
\n\tthe Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\t\tThe
\n\trespondent No.1 Bank shall intimate to the petitioners within one
\n\tweek from today, the amount payable by respective petitioners for
\n\tavailing the benefits of the Scheme plus interest at the rate of 8%
\n\tper annum to be paid to the auction purchaser on the amount
\n\tdeposited by the auction purchaser from the date of deposit until
\n\t30th September, 2008.  While calculating the said amount,
\n\tthe Bank shall deduct or shall give set off the amount already
\n\tdeposited by the petitioners pending the petitions or the Letters
\n\tPatent Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\t\tThe
\n\tpetitioners shall deposit the requisite amount with the respondent
\n\tBank within two weeks from the date of intimation or, in any case,
\n\ton or before 30th September, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\t\tUpon
\n\tthe compliance of the aforesaid direction, the auction shall stand
\n\tset aside and the respondent Bank shall refund the amount deposited
\n\tby the auction purchaser may be 10% of the offer or the full amount,
\n\tas the case may be, with the interest at the rate of 8% per annum
\n\tfrom the date of deposit of the respective amount until 30th
\n\tSeptember, 2008.  The said amount shall be returned preferably on or
\n\tbefore 15th of October, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
(e)\t\tUpon
\n\tthe compliance of the aforesaid directions, the action of the
\n\trespondent Bank for recovery of the outstanding amount or for
\n\tdisposal of the property of the petitioners shall not survive and
\n\tthe Bank shall give the same treatment to the debts of the
\n\tpetitioners as is required to be given as per the Scheme of the
\n\tCentral Government.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f)\t\tIf
\n\tthere is any dispute in implementing the Scheme, as per the Scheme,
\n\tthe forum is provided for grievance redressal officer.  Therefore,
\n\tin case of any difficulty, it would be open to the petitioners to
\n\tapproach before such officer, including for calculation.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Shah,
\n\tlearned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 Bank, states that
\n\tthe operation of this order be stayed qua Special Civil Application
\n\tNo.8926 of 2008 and Special Civil Application No.9314 of 2008 since
\n\tthe auction has been held and finalized as no Letters Patent Appeal
\n\twas preferred.  In my view, the Bank as such cannot have a better
\n\tright than the auction purchaser.  Further, same treatment is to be
\n\tgiven to all similarly situated persons. Therefore, the said request
\n\tis declined.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Dagli,
\n\tlearned Counsel for the auction purchaser also prayed for suspending
\n\tthe operation of this order for some time, so as to enable his
\n\tclient to approach before the higher forum.  Considering the facts
\n\tand circumstances, even otherwise also the order is to take effect
\n\tfor return of the amount after 30th September, 2008.
\n\tTherefore, the said request is declined.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tpetitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent.  Rule made absolute
\n\taccordingly.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
10.9.2008\t\t\t\t\t\t(Jayant\nPatel, J.)\n \n\n\nvinod\n\n    \n\n \n\t   \n      \n      \n\t    \n\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\t   \n      \n\t  \t    \n\t\t   Top\n\t   \n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011 Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/6513\/2008 22\/ 22 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6513 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6455 of 2008 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6456 of 2008 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-228400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-16T10:54:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-16T10:54:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3357,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-16T10:54:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-16T10:54:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-16T10:54:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011"},"wordCount":3357,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011","name":"Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-16T10:54:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anubhai-vs-shree-on-23-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anubhai vs Shree on 23 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228400","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=228400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}