Gujarat High Court
Jamnagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd vs Paresh Amrutlal Bhavsar & 2 on 16 June, 2017
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/16032/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16032 of 2015
=============================================
JAMNAGAR DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD....Petitioner(s)
Versus
PARESH AMRUTLAL BHAVSAR & 2....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DAXAY D PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 16/06/2017
ORAL ORDER
This petition arises out of the order passed below Exh.4 in Lavad Suit No.12 of 2015. The said order was passed by the Joint Registrar & Member, Board of Nominees, Rajkot, camp at Mehsana. The Lavad Suit was filed by the respondents herein, which was for the relief declaring that the meeting of the Board of Directors scheduled to take place on 09.09.2015 and the agenda of the said meeting were not same in accordance with law, and praying for interim injunction to restrain the Board of Directors to implement the resolution, to be passed in the said meeting.
2. It appears that the Board of Nominees entertained the interim injunction application of the plaintiffs - respondents herein by passing an order dated 30.09.2015. By the said order, the Board of Nominees granted injunction as prayed for, directing not to implement the agenda of the said meeting of 09.09.2015. It was against the said order dated 30.09.2015 Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 18 22:34:57 IST 2017 C/SCA/16032/2015 ORDER granting injunction, that the present petition came to be filed.
3. The aforesaid order dated 30.09.2015 appears to be extended by the Board of Nominees up to 05.10.2015. On 05.10.2015, this Court issued notice and directed that the stay granted by the Board of Nominees against its own order would continue to operate. On 05.05.2016, this Court issued rule in the petition and granted ad-interim-relief in terms of prayer 47(B) till further orders. The prayer 47(B) was for stay of execution, implementation and operation of the said impugned order dated 30.09.2015. In other words, the said order dated 30.09.2015 never operated and remained stayed throughout.
4. Interim order passed by this Court in this petition having operated and the impugned order having never operated, the relief has worked out for itself for the petitioner. After passage of almost three years, the reversal of this situation is not called for on any ground.
5. Upon considering the facts of the case and hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.T. Rao, nothing was noticed which could persuade the Court to upset the interim relief, which has worked out for itself as stated above, nor the respondents seem to be ever interested in the matter, as despite issuance of rule, they have not chosen to appear.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the aforesaid view, the interim relief granted by order dated 05.05.2016 in terms of paragraph 47(B) is made absolute. The petition, accordingly, Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 18 22:34:57 IST 2017 C/SCA/16032/2015 ORDER stands allowed. Rule is made absolute.
7. Only for the reason that the respondents have not chosen to appear, liberty is reserved for either side in case of real difficulty.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Dolly Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 18 22:34:57 IST 2017