IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
Dilipbhai Nanjibhai Patel & others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Gujarat & others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 7842, 7843, 7844, 7870, 7892, 9382, 9383 of 2008
Decided On : 14-10-2022
Investment - Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, Section 93 - 93 - Power of Registrar to assess damages against delinquent, promoters, etc. - Summary Suit No.4447/1997 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Special Civil Application No. 7842 of 2008, 7892 of 2008, 7870 of 2008, 9382 of 2008, 9383 of 2008 - The court quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.05.2008 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal confirming the order dated 28.06.2004 passed by respondent no.2 inquiry officer under section 93 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were members of the Executive Committee and/or Ex-Director of respondent no.3- Baroda Central Cooperative Bank Limited, invested surplus funds in various financial institutions. The respondent no.3 bank suffered a loss of Rs. 3 Crore due to investment in CRB Capital Market Limited. The inquiry officer held the petitioners liable for the loss and passed an order for recovery of the amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not misapply the funds of the bank and did not violate the provisions of section 71 of the Act, 1961. The court also found that the petitioners did not breach the powers conferred upon them for making the investment.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the petitioners for the loss suffered by the bank, the necessity of prior permission for investment, and the allegations of excess sitting fees, foreign travel expenses, and litigation expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners did not misapply the funds of the bank and did not breach the powers conferred upon them for making the investment. The court also found that the provisions of section 71 of the Act, 1961 did not require prior permission for the investment made by the bank.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.05.2008 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal confirming the order dated 28.06.2004 passed by respondent no.2 inquiry officer under section 93 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Saurabh G. Amin for petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 7842 of 2008, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for respondent Nos.1 & 2-State, learned advocate Mr. V.C.Vaghela for respondent No.3, learned advocate Mr. Manav Mehta for the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 7892 of 2008 and learned advocate Mr. P.S. Champaneri for the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7870 of 2008, 9382 of 2008 and 9383 of 2008.
2. By these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.05.2008 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal (For short “the Tribunal”) confirming the order dated 28.06.2004 passed by respondent no.2 inquiry officer under section 93 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (For short “the Act, 1961”).
3. Section 93 of the Act, 1961 reads as under :
(2) The Registrar or the person authorised under sub- section (1) in making any order under this section, may provide therein for the payment of the costs or any part thereof of such investigation, as he thinks just, and he may direct that such costs or any part thereof shall be recovered from the person against whom the order has been issued.
(3) This section shall apply, notwithstanding that the act is one for which the person concerned may be criminally responsible.”
4. By order dated 22.02.2022, this Court observed as under :
7. Learned advocate Mr. Manav Mehta submitted that he has no instructions to appear for the petitioner so far as Special Civil Application No. 7892 of 2008 is concerned.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Champaneri also has no instructions to appear for the petitioners so far as Special Civil Application Nos. 7870 of 20
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners did not misapply the funds of the bank and did not breach the powers conferred upon them for making the investment.
Previous sanction under Section 71 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 is a prerequisite for cooperative societies' investments, and post facto approval cannot be validated.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of natural justice and interprets the applicability of section 71 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, highlighting the necessity of previous sanction of t....
The RBI's imposition of directives under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act does not necessitate pre-decisional hearings, emphasizing the need for depositor protection over procedural formalit....
Point of Law - The principle to be applied is that there must be a injuria sine damnum and not the damnum sine injuria for taking a legal action and a legal recourse. A damage suffered has to be coup....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registrar cannot exercise the power under Section 74D of the Societies Act when the election of the managing committee is restrained under....
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.