IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Colour Merchant Co-Operative Bank – Appellant
Versus
Lalbhai Bhogilal Deceased Thro Heirs & 3 others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No.3903 of 2008, 12631, 13387, 12633, 12634, 12628, 12627, 12635, 12629, 12630 of 2018, 4414 of 2015
Decided on : 14-10-2022
Lavad Cases - Recovery of Outstanding Dues - Gujarat State Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 - 76B, 93, 155 - The court discussed the judgment and award passed by the Board of Nominees in Lavad Cases for recovery of outstanding dues from the respondents. The court highlighted the provisions of the Gujarat State Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 including sections 76B, 93, and 155, and their implications on the recovery of outstanding dues.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cooperative bank, filed petitions challenging the order passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal quashing the judgment and award passed by the Board of Nominees in Lavad Cases for recovery of outstanding dues from the respondents. The case involved allegations of siphoning of funds by the late Joint Managing Director of the petitioner bank and others, leading to criminal complaints, removal of the director, and initiation of proceedings under the Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in quashing the judgment and award passed by the Board of Nominees, and directed the Board of Nominees to re-hear the Lavad Cases independently and pass separate judgments and awards within six months.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged siphoning of funds, the actions taken by the petitioner bank, the orders passed under the Act, 1961, and the Tribunal's decision to quash the judgment and award passed by the Board of Nominees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Board of Nominees should have considered evidence separately in each Lavad Case and passed separate judgments and awards, and directed the Board of Nominees to re-hear the cases independently.
Final Decision: The court modified the impugned orders, quashed the common judgment and decree in Lavad Cases, and directed the Board of Nominees to re-hear the cases independently and pass separate judgments and awards within six months.
JUDGMENT :
1. All these petitions are filed by Colour Merchant Co-operative Bank challenging the order passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal [‘Tribunal’ for short] in respective appeals quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Board of Nominees in Lavad Cases for recovery of the outstanding dues from the respondents.
2. Special Civil Application No. 3903 of 2008 is filed against the order dated 05.05.2008 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal No. 261 of 2002 filed by the legal heirs of late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar against the judgment and award dated 31.12.2001 passed by the Board of Nominees at Ahmedabad in Lavad Case No. 1545 of 1995.
3. The petitioner-Bank is registered under the provisions of the Gujarat State Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act, 1961’]. Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar, at the relevant point of time, was Joint Managing Director of the petitioner-Bank who is now represented by his legal heirs who are respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/6 in SCA No. 3903 of 2008. Respondent No.2-M/s. Dharmanath Textile and respondent No.3- M/s. Vir Traders were proprietorship concern of Mr. Niranjan A. Shah and Late Sevantilal Manilal Shah represented through his legal heirs being respondent No.3/1 to 3/3 in SCA No. 3903 of 2008 whereas Respondent No.4-Bharatbhai Pamanlal Shah was Manager of the petitioner-Bank at the relevant point of time.
4. It is the case of the petitioner bank that in the year 1990, Rs. 25,01,800/- of the petitioner-Bank was siphoned away systematically in the name of different parties including respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar and respondent No.4-Bharatbhai Shah-Ex- Manager of the petitioner-Bank in collusion with such parties.
5. The petitioner-Bank therefore, initiated action against Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar and respondent No.4 and other account holders including respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
6. The petitioner-Bank filed 15 criminal complaints on 12.01.1990 against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and others in Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad. A notice was issued under section 76B of the Act,1961 on 17.02.1992 to the deceased Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar by the District Registrar (Ahmedabad City) for misappropriation of funds of Rs. 25,01,800/-.
7. The District Registrar vide order dated 11.08.1992 passed an order to remove deceased Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar from the post of Joint Managing Director of the petitioner-Bank for the period of four years. The said order was challenged by late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar by preferring Revision Application No. 71 of 1992 before the Additional Registrar, Gujarat State at Gandhinagar. The order of the District Registrar was partly modified by the order dated 13.01.1993 in the Revision Application to the extent that Late Lalbhai was ordered to be disqualified for four years for the said post and to contest the election.
8. Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar preferred Special Civil Application No. 2391 of 2013 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 25.10.1994 on the ground of alternative remedy. Late Lalbhai Bhoilal Bhavsar thereafter preferred Revision Application under section 155 of the Act, 1961 before the State Government which was also dismissed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) which had become final in absence of any challenge by Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar before the higher forum.
9. The District Registrar (Ahmedabad City) initiated proceedings under section 93 of the Act, 1961 against Late Lalbhai Bhavsar and others on the basis of the audit report for the year 1989-90 and issued show-cause notice dated 19.09.1991. An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 16.12.1991. The Inquiry Officer, after considering the explanation given by Late Lalbhai Bhavsar pursuant to the show-cause notice, submitted charge-sheet against him and others and framed five charges on 21.05.1992.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for separate consideration of evidence and separate judgments and awards in cases involving multiple defendants and allegations, as....
Failure to apply for defense in a summary suit under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act results in acceptance of the claims made by the plaintiff.
Point of law: Tribunal, after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner along with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have failed to deposit 25% of the amount to contest the Lavad Suit as condition....
The liability of the guarantor is coextensive with that of the principal debtor unless explicitly provided otherwise in the contract (Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872). The creditor has t....
A guarantor remains liable unless specific conditions for discharge are met, including the replacement of the guarantee or redemption of the mortgage.
The liability of the guarantor under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was a key legal principle discussed in the judgment, emphasizing that the guarantor's liability is coextensive with t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.