ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

Order in Civil Application (For delay) Nos. 693 of 2024 &

704 of 2024 The delay occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeals is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, delay is condoned. Present Civil Applications are allowed. Registry is directed to give pakka number to the Appeals.

Order in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 141 of 2024, 142 of

2024 and 137 of 2024

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

2. The instant set of appeals (three in numbers) are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents, whereby three set of writ petitions filed by the respondents – Bank namely Special Civil Application Nos.11116 of 2023, 11204 of 2023 and 11445 of 2023, have been allowed noticing that the Tribunal had committed an error in allowing the appeals preferred by the borrowers and remanding the matter back to the Board of Nominees by reducing the amount fixed by it for grant of leave to defend and that too without passing a reasoned order.

3. The other set of three writ petitions namely Special Civil Application Nos. 2971 of 2020, 2974 of 2020 and 2972 of 2020, filed by the borrowers challenging the notice of seizure dated 09.04.2019 issued by the Bank, have been dismissed noticing that the contention of the Petitioners borrowers that they were prevented from defending their case in the summary suits filed by the Bank on account of the condition of deposit of 33.5% put up by the Board of Nominees, was not acceptable. The reason was that three revisions filed by the petitioners borrowers challenging the order of the Board of Nominees under Rule 41-A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1965’) directing to deposit of 33.5%

for grant of conditional leave to defend were not taken further and were dismissed as infructuous after the final decree was passed by the Board of Nominees, on the request made by the petitioners borrowers themselves. Further challenge to the seizure notice dated 09.04.2019 that they were issued only one day after decreeing the suits vide order dated 08.04.2019 by the Board of Nominees, that too during the pendency of the revisions filed by the petitioners challenging the order putting condition for grant of leave of defend as per Rule 41-A of the Rules, 1965, was also turned down on the above-noted reasoning. The result is that the learned Single Judge has reached at the conclusion that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to modify the conditions of leave to defend by reducing the amount by asking the borrowers to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- only each, in three suits to grant them leave to defend the suit while remitting the matter to the Board of Nominees.

4. Challenging these orders, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants – borrowers that three accounts to avail overdraft facility were opened by the borrowers with the respondent Bank for a total amount of Rs. 4 crores which was extended in the year 2014. In order to secure the loan, insurance policy was taken by the borrowers at the insistence of the bank by paying huge premium. While the business was being run smoothly and there was no dispute with regard to repayment of loan, the property-in- question which was an industrial unit, was acquired in a proceedings of acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 in the year 2016. As the substantial portion of the property wherein industrial unit was being run, had been acquired, the unit was shut down. The borrowers, thus, on account of the unforeseen circumstances faced by them, were prevented from repayment of loan. However, an amount of Rs. 59 lacs, which was received by the borrowers towards compensation as a result of acquisition, was directly deposited in the loan account.

5. It is further contended that even a dispute has been raised be