Gujarat High Court
Rajwadi Agro Food Pvt. Ltd vs The Mehsana Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 2 February, 2024
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6480/2020 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6480 of 2020
==========================================================
RAJWADI AGRO FOOD PVT. LTD.
Versus
THE MEHSANA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASIM PANDYA, SR COUNSEL WITH MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 02/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr Asim Pandya, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr Jay
S. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, at the outset, seeks
permission to delete respondent nos.2 to 4.
2. Request is acceded to. Respondent nos.2 to 4, are directed to
be deleted from the array of respondents.
3. Mr Asim Pandya, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr Jay
S. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that order
dated 13.01.2016, was passed in the Summary Suit whereby, the
petitioners were directed to deposit 30% of the amount as prayed
for by the respondent bank. The petitioners, being aggrieved,
preferred a writ petition before this Court and this Court, was kind
enough to reduce the 30% amount to 10% of the suit claim. In the
Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioners, this Court, was kind
enough to stay the order dated 13.01.2016 as, despite the
injunction, the property was mortgaged. Letters Patent Appeal was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6480/2020 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2024
undefined
disposed of with a direction to dispose of the pending petition and
accordingly the writ petition came to be disposed of.
4. It is submitted that during the pendency of the revision
application before the Tribunal, learned Board of Nominees has
decreed the suit and as the Tribunal was not available, captioned
writ petition was filed. This Hon'ble Court, was of the opinion that
when the order of 13.01.2016 passed in Summary Suit was subject
matter of challenge in the revision application pursuant to the
direction of this Court, there was no reason available to the learned
Board of Nominees to have passed the impugned award rendering
the revision application infructuous. Accordingly, this Court, has
granted interim relief and has stayed the implementation and
operation of the common order dated 05.02.2020 and the
award/judgment of the even date passed by the learned Board of
Nominees in the Lavad Suit.
5. It is submitted before this Court that in view of the availability
of Tribunal, petitioners shall be taking up appropriate proceedings
before the Tribunal challenging the award passed by the learned
Board of Nominees. It is submitted that till the time steps are taken;
for formally challenging the award of the learned Board of
Nominees, the stay granted by this Court be continue.
6. Mr Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate submitted that during
the pendency of the writ petition, the assets, have now been
transferred to Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited. It is
therefore submitted that petitioners will now have to join them as
party respondents.
7. Heard Mr Asim Pandya, learned senior counsel appearing with
Mr Jay S. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6480/2020 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2024
undefined
Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1.
8. This Court, on 16.03.2020, has passed order which reads thus:
"1. NOTICE returnable on 20.04.2020. Learned advocate
Mr.Dakshesh Mehta waives service of notice for respondent
No.1.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated
05.02.2020 passed by the Joint Registrar, Board of Nominees,
by which, a final award is passed against the petitioner who
are original defendant nos.1, 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3.
3. Heard Mr.Asim Pandya learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Jay
Shah learned advocate for the petitioners.
4. It appears that the Board of Nominees on 13.01.2016
passed an order granting the petitioners conditional leave to
defend on the ground that the petitioners deposit 30% of the
amount as prayed for by the plaintiff-respondent bank. That
order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil
Application No.1825 of 2016. This Court on 15.02.2016 stayed
the impugned order on a condition that the petitioner shall
deposit 10% of the suit claim on or before 25.02.2016. That
order was taken in appeal by filing Letters Patent Appeal
No.114 of 2016. On 22.02.2016, the Court stayed the order of
the Nominees Court dated 13.01.2016 passed in Summary
Lavad Suit No.280 of 2014.
5. The Letters Patent Appeal was finally disposed of with a
direction that the pending petition be disposed of on merits.
6. On 13.02.2019, this Court in the petitions being Special Civil
Application No.1823 to 1825 of 2016, passed the following
order:
"1. Learned Advocate Mr. Pandya appearing for the
petitioners states that the present petitions were
filed as at the relevant time the Gujarat
Cooperative Tribunal was not available as stated in
the petition, however since the Tribunal is
available now, he has no objection to approach the
Tribunal for challenging the impugned order. He
further requests that since the ad-interim relief is
continuing for a period of three years, the same be
continued for sometime so as to enable him to
approach the Tribunal.
2. However, learned Advocate Mr. Purohit
appearing for the respondent No. 1 Bank submits
that he has no objection if the petitioners are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6480/2020 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2024
undefined
permitted to approach the Tribunal, however the
ad interim relief may not be continued.
3. Having regard to the submissions made by the
learned Advocates appearing for the parties and to
the fact that the interim order is continued since
February, 2016, the petitioners are permitted to
withdraw the present petition with a view to
approach the Tribunal as may be permissible
under the law. The impugned order passed by the
Board of Nominees shall remain stayed qua the
present petitioners till 25.02.2019.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, the
petitions are dismissed. It is clarified that the Court
has not gone into the merits of the case. Direct
Service today is permitted."
7. Mr.Asim Pandya, learned Senior Advocate would submit
that pursuant to the order so passed, a Revision Application
No.32 of 2019 was filed before the Cooperative Tribunal. Since
there was a delay in filing the revision, an application being
Misc. Civil Application No.14 of 2019 was filed for condonation
of delay. Delay was condoned by an order dated 27.02.2019.
In the interregnum, the Tribunal did not have the members.
However, on a valid reconstitution of the Tribunal, the revision
was heard and the written submissions were filed by the
petitioner on 13.01.2020 and it was kept for further hearing
on 13.02.2020. In the meantime, the impugned award dated
05.02.2020 was passed. The prime ground of challenge to the
award is that such an award was passed by the Board of
Nominees on an application Exh.52 filed by the bank stating
that there was no stay in the proceedings in the Lavad Suit
after the order of 13.01.2016.
8. Mr.Dakshesh Mehta appearing on caveat for the respondent
no.1-bank would submit that the application Exh.52 was filed,
as it is evident from the order disposing of the petitions on
13.02.2019 that the stay was operating only till 25.02.2019.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties,
prima-facie, I am of the opinion that when the order of
13.01.2016 passed in the Summary Suit is a subject matter of
challenge in a Revision Application pursuant to the directions
of this Court and when in the Revision Application, the
petitioner had filed its written arguments and the revision was
posted for further hearing on 13.02.2020, there was no reason
for the Nominees Court to pass the impugned award pending
the petition.
10. Therefore, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of para
9C. However, it will be open for the parties to the proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6480/2020 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2024
undefined
to request the Tribunal to decide and hear the Revision
Application pending before it within a stipulated time that the
parties may agree to before the Tribunal.
Direct service is permitted."
9. The aforesaid order dated 16.03.2020, was challenged before
the Hon'ble Division Bench by the respondent bank; however, the
appeal by the bank has been disposed of and therefore, the order
dated 16.03.2020 has attained finality.
10. The petitioners shall take steps and not delay the hearing of
the application and/or filing of the revision application against the
award dated 05.02.2023. In view of the above and with a view to
enabling the petitioners to approach the Tribunal, the stay granted
by this Court to continue till 15.04.2024.
11. The above order, has been passed without prejudice to the
rights and contentions available to the respective parties.
12. Needless to clarify that this Court, has not entered into the
merits of the matter.
13. Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. No order as
to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
RAVI P. PATEL
