Gujarat High Court
Dwarkesh Industrial Co Operative ... vs Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd on 13 December, 2023
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14249/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14249 of 2018
==========================================================
DWARKESH INDUSTRIAL CO OPERATIVE SERVICE SOC LTD
Versus
VISNAGAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHWAS K SHAH(5364) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MEET THAKKAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR AMAR N BHATT(160) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 13/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
Mr Vishwas K. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that so far as prayer 9(b) is concerned, the petitioner,
does not press the same; so far as prayer 9(a) is concerned, it is
submitted that there is a heart-burning inasmuch as, the amount,
has still remained unpaid. It is submitted that the petitioner has
approached the Liquidator; since there was no response, that the
petitioner, was compelled to file the captioned writ petition.
2. It is fairly conceded that the petitioner, is not a secured
creditor and will have to wait for its turn to receive the amount
towards the fixed deposit. It is urged that the petitioner, shall
approach the Liquidator with a request to disburse the amount as
per the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.
With this limited request, Mr Vishwas K. Shah, learned advocate,
seeks permission to withdraw the captioned writ petition.
3. Mr Amar N. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent no.5,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14249/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
on the other hand, submitted that respondent no.5, has a statutory
right of priority in receiving the repayment of the insurance amount
disbursed to depositors under the provisions of the Deposit
Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act of 1961') and also, in terms of judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee
Corporation vs. Ragupathi Ragavan reported in (2015) 9 SCC 629. It
is submitted that considering the provisions of Section 21 of the Act
of 1961 read with Regulation 22 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit
Guarantee Corporation General Regulations, 1961, it has been held
and observed that the Official Liquidator, as per the provisions of
clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act of 1961, has to
repay the amount to the Corporation. Section 21 not only makes its
obligatory on the part of the Official Liquidator to repay the said
amount to the Corporation, but it also clarifies that there shall not
be any other preferential creditor who would be getting any amount
from the Official Liquidator till the amount payable under Section 21
of Act of 1961 is paid to the Corporation.
4. It is next submitted that similarly situated banks were
declared as secured creditors in the proceedings before the learned
single Judge. The said judgment has been reversed by the common
oral judgment dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench in
Letters Patent Appeal no.1300 of 2010 and other allied matters.
Heavy reliance is placed on paragraph 9.1 of the said judgment,
which has been confirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated
21.07.2022 in Civil Appeal no.14695 of 2015 and other allied
matters. It is therefore, submitted that the issue, stands covered so
far as the respondent no.5 is concerned. So far as the petitioner is
concerned, it has received an amount of Rs. 1 lac each per deposit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14249/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
So far as the remaining amount is concerned, the petitioner, would
be eligible and entitled as per its turn.
5. Mr Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate for the respondent no.1
has submitted that there is no dispute so far as respondent no.5 is
concerned. As and when the amount is realized, the same shall be
paid as per the priority and in seriatim as per the provisions of the
Act of 1961.
6. In view of the above, the request of the petitioner is acceded
to. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Notice is discharged. No
order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
BINOY B PILLAI
