Gujarat High Court
Jatin Hiralal Shah vs Secretary on 24 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11621/2012 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11621 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2012
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11621 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 2 of 2012
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11621 of 2012
==========================================================
JATIN HIRALAL SHAH
Versus
SECRETARY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance (In Sca No. 11621 of 2012):
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
Appearance in CA NO.1 of 2012:
Ms. Ayushri M. Thakkar for Singhi & Co. for the Applicant
Notice not received back from respondent No.4
Notice Served by DS to respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. Anshin Desai for respondsent No.5.
Party in Person, resondent No.1
Appearance in CA NO.2 of 2012:
Ms. Nalini S. Lodha for the Applicant
Party in Person, respondent No.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 24/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:49:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11621/2012 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined Order in Civil Application No.1 of 2012 and Civil Application No. 2 of 2012 :
Heard the learned advocate Ms. Ayushri M. Thakkar for Singhi & Co. appearing for the applicant ICICI Bank Ltd. in Civil Application No.1 of 2012 (Civil Application No. 12699 of 2012) and the learned advocate Ms. Nalini Lodha appearing for the applicant Bank of Baroda in Civil Application No.2 of 2012 (Civil Application No. 12741 of 2012).
2. Both these applications have been filed by the banks namely the ICICI Bank Ltd. and Bank of Baroda - an Asset Recover Management Branch, on the premise that they are necessary and proper parties in the present petition, which has been filed to challenge the order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Original Application No. 192 of 2001, 274 of 2001, 300 of 2001 and 326 of 2001.
3. The impugned order dated 17.09.2010 had been passed in favour of the applicants namely the ICICI Bank Ltd. and other bank institution namely the IDBI Bank Ltd., whereby the Vision Organics Ltd. A company wherein the petitioner herein claimed to be a Director, has been directed to pay inter alia an amount of Rs. 31,27,45,531.35 with simple interest @ 7% from the date of Original Application until realisation to the applicants towards recovery of their dues.
4. Taking note of the above, we may record that no objection to the aforesaid applications has been filed by the petitioner, who is appearing as a party in person in the present petition. The Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:49:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11621/2012 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined applicants being necessary and proper parties in the present petition, both the applications, namely Civil Application No.1 of 2012 (Civil Application No. 12699 of 2012) and Civil Application No.2 of 2012 (Civil Application No. 12741 of 2012) are hereby allowed.
5. The Civil Applications stand disposed of, accordingly. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.
6. While allowing this applications seeking for joining the parties, we have further proceeded to consider the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for the newly impleaded respondent banks on the merits of the writ petition.
Order in Special Civil Application No. 11621 of 2012 At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner namely Jatin Hiralal Shah, who is appearing as a party in person in the present proceedings, is absent. It is pointed out by the learned counsel Ms. Nalini Lodha appearing for the Bank of Baroda, newly added party respondent, that the competency certificate of Mr. Jatin Hiralal Shah to appear as a party in person has been revoked by the order dated 27.02.2025 in Special Civil Application No. 16562 of 2023.
2. Pertinent is to note that inspite of revocation of the competency certificate, the petitioner has not engaged any advocate to represent his case. On the face of the record, it seems that the petitioner is not interested in pressing his case.
3. Be that as it may, noticing the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for the respondent Banks, who are found to be Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:49:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11621/2012 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined necessary and proper party in the present petition, we find it fit and proper to go through the record and note the relevant facts before arriving at any final conclusion about the case of the petitioner.
4. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer :-
"(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, holding and declaring that, functioning and all acts, orders of DRT-II, Ahmedabad after 11.05.2010 under administrative control of Ministry of Finance, as unconstitutional and void.
(b) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition your Lordship may be pleased to stay the unconstitutional further implementation and execution of the unconstitutional common order against petitioner dt 17.09.2010, passed by unconstitutionaly functioning, DRT-II, Ahmedabad, annexed hereto as Annexure-C.
(c) Be pleased to reinstitute and compensate the victim petitioner, as per law as detailed, in facts para 12 (a) & (b), of this petition.
5. A perusal of the relief prayed by the petitioner herein, indicates that the petitioner is seeking to assail the order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad on the premise that all acts and orders of the DRT (II), Ahmedabad after 11.05.2010 under the administrative control of Ministry of Finance are unconstitutional and void.
6. It is pertinent to take note of the interim order dated 18.10.2012 passed by this Court in the present petition. A perusal of the said order indicates that on the presentation of the writ petition, objections have been taken by the learned advocates appearing for the banks namely the Bank of Baroda and ICICI Bank Ltd. about the maintainability of the writ petition while making a prayer to permit them to file objections for being joined as a party respondent. The ground taken as to the entertainability of the Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:49:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11621/2012 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined present petition, as noted in the order dated 18.10.2012 by the learned advocate for the respondent banks, was that Special Civil Application No. 7047 of 2012 was filed challenging the selfsame order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the DRT, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 13.09.2012 and the said fact was relevant to be disclosed by the petitioner.
7. The copy of the judgment and order dated 13.09.2012 of dismissal of the said petition has been brought on record and the said fact is also noted by this Court in the order dated 18.10.2012. Upon noticing the same, it was observed and directed in paragraph No. '5' therein as under:-
"In the above facts, it prima facie appears that the petitioner is making repeated attempts at stalling the recovery proceedings even after order dated 13.9.2012, as aforesaid, of Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7047 of 2012; although he has insisted that some new grievance and grounds have been added in present petition. However, in order to prevent any abuse of the process of Court and to secure compensation or cost which may be awarded to the respondent in the present proceeding, the petitioner is directed to deposit with the registry sum of Rs.2,50,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand only) by the next date of hearing as a condition precedent to the petition being entertained. The petition is ordered to be listed for admission hearing on 7th November 2012. In the meantime, it will be open for the banks concerned to file their applications and move them for hearing along with present petition on the next date of hearing."
8. A further perusal of the order dated 09.01.2013 passed in this petition indicates that the petitioner instead of depositing the amount as directed by this Court in the order dated 18.10.2012, had filed a Review Application seeking recall of the said order, being Civil Application No. 12766 of 2012. The review application has been rejected vide judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 with the following observations :-
Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:49:57 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11621/2012 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined "3. Thus, the basis of the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2012, which is sought to be reviewed, stands confirmed. Even as the main petition of the applicant is being listed before another Court for admission hearing, the applicant, appearing as party-in-person, has insisted upon arguing by himself and arguing all the points that are raised in the main petition. Upon being repeatedly requested to confine his submissions to the application for review, he has submitted that all of his assets are attached and hence he is unable to deposit or raise any fund for complying with the order dated 18.10.2012; and his right to approach the Court under Article 226 with an ultra vires petition cannot be taken away. He repeatedly argued that he had found new documents to substantiate the points raised in the main petition and has also come to know that five petitions on the same issue are already filed in and entertained by the Apex Court and other High Courts. He went on to submit that the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2012 was made in ignorance of law and the Court was duty bound to correct the error.
4. A conjoint reading of the earlier order dated 13.9.2012 in SCA No.7047 of 2012 and the order dated 18.10.2012, which is sought to be reviewed, it is apparent that the applicant is in the habit of abusing the process of Court and taking away considerable time of the Court with the facility of not answering any of the relevant queries. Besides that, no legal ground is made out for review of the order. Instead, the applicant has behaved in a manner which may amount to contempt of Court. Under the circumstances, the application is rejected with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the applicant to respondent No.1 on whose behalf the standing counsel has been required to attend the hearing from time to time, and, in case such payment is not made within a fortnight, he is requested to move the Court for action under the Contempt of Courts Act."
"
9. A further perusal of the judgment and order dated 13.09.2012 of dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 7047 of 2012 indicates that the petitioner herein namely Jatin Hiralal Shah, was petitioner No.3 in the said writ petition, which was filed by four petitioners including M/s. Vision Organic Ltd., challenging the order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the DRT-II in OA No. 192 of 2021, 274 of 2001, 300 of 2001 and 326 of 2001. Mr. Jatin Hiralal Shah had appeared as a party in person to argue the said petition. The writ Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:49:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11621/2012 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined petition was dismissed rejecting the arguments made by the party in person. It seems that the judgment and order dated 13.09.2012 was challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4386 of 2013, which has been dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Apex Court, which reads that, "We find that no ground is made out to entertain this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed."
10. The record of the present petition indicates that the present petition has been filed on 20/23.08.2012. The first order in this petition dated 29.08.2012, when the notice was issued. It is, thus, evident that the same petitioner filed two writ petitions simultaneously before this Court namely Special Civil Application No. 7047 of 2012 and the present petition for the same cause of action i.e. challenging the order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the DRT on different grounds.
11. The averments made in para No. '11' of the present petition indicates that, the petitioner has disclosed the factum of filling of a writ petition No. 7047 of 2012 and that it was at the stage of admission with the assertion that he had no objection if both the petitions were clubbed together, inasmuch as, the vires are challenged in the present petition.
12. Taking note of the above, suffice it to record that with the dismissal of the Special Civil Application No. 7047 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 13.09.2012, the present petition is not entertainable. Moreover, the condition put forth by this Court in the order dated 18.12.2012 to entertain the present petition, has not been complied with. The petitioner has not deposited the Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:49:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11621/2012 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined amount as directed by this Court as a condition precedent to entertain the writ petition.
13. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as not entertainable, being a writ petition filed for the same cause of action without impleadment of the necessary and proper parties in the petition, challenging an order, validity of which has already been upheld by this Court.
14. With the above, the writ petition stands dismissed as not entertainable in the absence of the petitioner, namely Jatin Hiralal Shah, who was appearing as a party in person and is not represented by any advocate after revocation of his competency certificate as on 27.02.2025.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) C.M. JOSHI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:49:57 IST 2025