Gujarat High Court
Chirag Nanalal Kakkad vs Veraval Peoples' Co-Op on 19 December, 2013
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
CHIRAG NANALAL KAKKAD....Petitioner(s)V/SVERAVAL PEOPLES' CO-OP. BANK LTD. C/SCA/13605/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13605 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ CHIRAG NANALAL KAKKAD Versus VERAVAL PEOPLES' CO-OP. BANK LTD. & ORS ================================================================ Appearance: PARTY-IN-PERSON, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner MR ASHISH H SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 2 MR RC KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Respondents No. 1 , 4 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondents No. 3 , 5 - 6 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI Date : 19/12/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
1 RULE. Service of Rule is waived by Mr. R.C. Kakkad, learned Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 and 4 and Mr. Ashish H. Shah, learned Advocate, appearing for respondent No.2 respectively. Though notice is served upon respondents No. 3, 5 and 6 neither they have not remained present before the Court nor engaged any Lawyer. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2 Party-in-person Mr. Chirag Nanalal Kakkad, petitioner herein, after arguing the matter for some time, states that, though, the petition has been filed by him challenging the Order dated 25.4.2013 passed by the Board of Nominees Court, Rajkot, below application Exhibit-35 in Lavad Suit No.60 of 2012, by which the amendment application filed by him under Order-6 Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected as well as the Order dated 6.8.2013 passed in Revision Application No. 61 of 2013 by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Revision Application and confirmed the Order of the Board of Nominees Court, Rajkot and also imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- for filing such application, he intends to proceed with the Lavad Suit No. 60 of 2012 which is ordered to be heard expeditiously by the Revisional Court in the past. Party-in-person further states that he shall pray for a decree as prayed in paragraph-26 of Lavad Suit No. 60 of 2012. He further states that he does not press the prayer challenging the rejection of his amendment application at Exhibit-35, however, requests that the Order dated 6.8.2013 passed in Revision Application No. 61 of 2013 by the learned Tribunal, Ahmedabad, may be quashed and set aside, qua, imposition of cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
3 I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused the Order dated 6.8.2013 passed in Revision Application No. 61 of 2013 by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal as well as the papers produced by the petitioner party-in-person. It appears that the grievance of the petitioner was that the respondent No.2 was a similarly situated person when he filled-up the form like him, the Election Officer has not accepted his form, but the form of the respondent No.2 was accepted. The petitioner has also filed a Revision Application No. 61 of 2013 before the Tribunal, but he has not prayed for stay of the entire election process.
4 In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that, the learned Tribunal has unnecessarily imposed the exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner. The learned Advocates appearing for the respondents have not seriously opposed the prayer made by the petitioner for setting aside the Order of the Tribunal, qua, the imposition of cost. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner to set aside the order, qua, imposing the cost, is required to be accepted. Hence, the following order is passed.
The present petition is partly allowed. The Order dated 6.8.2013 passed in Revision Application No. 61 of 2013 by the learned Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, is quashed and set aside only, qua, imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner. The Board of Nominees Court, Rajkot, shall complete the hearing of Lavad Suit No. 60 of 2012 pending before it as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this Order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. The interim relief granted by this Court with regard to staying the proceedings of Lavad Suit No. 60 of 2012, pending before the learned Board of Nominees Court at Rajkot, shall stand vacated. Direct Service is permitted.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) pnnair Page 4 of 4