SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 1175

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurabh G Amin, Mr. P S Champaneri, Mr. Manav Mehta
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, AGP, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Mr. VC Vaghela

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.

Headnote:

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 :

    “93. Power of Registrar to assess damages against delinquent, promoters, etc. (1) "Where, in the course of or as a result of an audit under section 84, or an inspection under sub-section (8) of section 84, or an inquiry under section 86 or an inspection under section 87 or section 88, or the winding up of a society, the Registrar is satisfied on the basis of the report made by the auditor or the person authorised to make inquiry under section 86, or the person authorised to inspect the books under sub-section (8) of section 84, 87 or 88 or the Liquidator under section 110], that any person who has taken any part, in the organisation or management of the society or any deceased, or past or present officer of the society has, within a period of five years prior to the date of such audit, inquiry, inspection or order for winding up, misapplied or retained, or become liable or accountable for, any money or property of the society. or has been guilty of misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the society, the Registrar or a person authorised by him in that behalf may investigate the conduct of such person or persons and after framing charges against such person or persons, and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned and in the case of a deceased person to him representative who inherits his estate, to answer the charges, make an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof, with interest at such rate as the Registrar or the person authorised under this section may determine, or to contribute such sum to the assets of the society by way of compensation in regard to the misapplication, retention, misfeasance or breach of trust, as he may determine.

(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 :

    “6. With regard to other Special Civil Applications listed and tagged along with Special Civil Application No. 7842 of 2008 are concerned, in Special Civil Application No. 7843 of 2008, advocate notice is unserved whereas in Special Civil Application No. 7844 of 2008, advocate notice is served for the petitioner No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Vimal Patel has filed his vakalatnama for petitioner No.2.

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

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top