Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

N.L vs Secretary on 19 February, 2010

Author: Ks Jhaveri

Bench: Ks Jhaveri

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/6964/2005	 2/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6964 of 2005
 

 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
 

=============================================================
 

 
	 
		 
		 
	
	 
		 
	
	  
		 
			 

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 ?
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	

 

=============================================================
  

 

N.L.
DUBASIA & 1 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

SECRETARY
& 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Petitioner(s) : 2, 
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Respondent(s) :
1.2.1,1.2.2  
MR AMAR N BHATT for Respondent(s) : 2, 
M/S TRIVEDI
& GUPTA for Respondent(s) :
3, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/02/2010
 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.1472 of 2003 filed before this Court. It would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant relief clauses of the said petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.1472 of 2003, as under :

8(A) The respondents Nos.2 and 3 may be directed by a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to reply the amount deposited by the petitioner in FCNR Accounts with the State Bank of India from the year 1979 onwards at the rate of reconversion prevailing on the original date of deposit from the date of deposit;
(B) To direct the respondents namely Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India to reconvert the amount of principal and interest thereon dealing to the petitioners at the exchange rate of Rs.13.07 per US$ that was adopted on the date of conversion i.e. on 7.4.1998 as the notional rate of exchange and to make it transferable outside India;
(C) To direct respondent No.2 Reserve Bank of India, in case of NRE Rupee deposit with other Banks as per the Ann.'A' dt.22.4.1988.
(i) To pay the difference amounts resulting from the proportional adjustments to the exchange rates that existed on the dates of remittances and the date of releases.
(ii) to pay interest thereon at 24% p.a. Compounded quarterly till the dates of repayment and;
(iii) to make all these amounts transferable outside India at the current exchange rates.
(D) To Award such amount of interest on the aforesaid amount as may be required in the in the interest of justice.

2.0 During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115 as well as a decision of this Court in the case of Patan Taluka Muman's Cattle Breeding and Milk Supplying reported in 1996(2) GLH 752, and have submitted that in light of the observations made by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the above cited decisions, the present petition is required to be rejected.

3.0 Having heard the petitioner-Party-In-Person as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perusing the above cited decisions, I am of the opinion that the case of the respondents is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions and, therefore, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. Hence, in light of the observations made by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the above cited decisions, the present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. The interim relief, if any, stands hereby vacated.

(K.S. Jhaveri, J) Aakar     Top