Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Chief Manager, State Of Bank Of India vs Lalit Chandra C Patel on 22 July, 2016
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh, R. Banumathi
1
ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.13 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34713/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/03/2014
in SCA No. 3124/2014 passed by the High Court Of Gujarat At
Ahmedabad)
CHIEF MANAGER, STATE OF BANK OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
LALIT CHANDRA C PATEL AND ORS Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
Date : 22/07/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anil Kumar Sangal,Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar, Adv.
Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru,Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Adv.
Ms. Bharathi Raju, Adv.
Ms. Shilpa Manchanda, Adv.
Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated in the Signature Not Verified signed order. No costs.
Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date: 2016.07.26 16:03:56 IST Reason: (NEELAM GULATI) (MADHU NARULA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6630 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 34713 of 2014) CHIEF MANAGER, STATE OF BANK OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUS LALIT CHANDRA C PATEL AND ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
On behalf of the appellant, it has been suggested that this matter is fit to be remanded back to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, for being heard alongwith Special Civil Application No. 15365 of 2014 filed by the first respondent and pending before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no error in the Impugned Order requiring interference.
We find that the matter relates to recovery of excess amount from the first respondent, a retired official of the Excise Department who had received an amount in excess of what he was authorised by way of pension.
Since related matter is still pending with the High Court, we are of the considered view that without going into 2 the merits of the Impugned Order, it deserves to be set aside so that the entire matter may be considered by the High Court in totality and completeness and both the matters may be disposed of by a common judgment.
For that purpose, the Impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for being decided alongwith SCA No. 15365 of 2014. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
…..............J (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) …..............J (R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI JULY 22, 2016