Gujarat High Court
Parshottamdas vs Gujarat on 14 March, 2011
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/245/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR STAY No. 245 of 2010
In
SECOND
APPEAL No. 10 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 246 of 2010
In
SECOND APPEAL No. 11 of 2010
To
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 247 of 2010
In
SECOND APPEAL No. 12 of 2010
=========================================================
PARSHOTTAMDAS
PREMJIBHAI PATELIA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
ELECTRICITY BOARD & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AS ASTHAVADI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 3,
MR
PREMAL R JOSHI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 14/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi waives service of notice on behalf of the opponents.
With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, these applications are taken up for final hearing.
I have heard learned advocates for the parties at length and in great detail.
It appears that money decree is passed against the applicant and therefore normally money decree should not be stayed unless sufficient cause is shown. Learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Central Bank of India and others reported in 1987(1) GLH 372. In the facts of the present case, this judgement cannot be made applicable.
It appears that the applicant was an employee of the opponent and it was alleged that during the course of his employment he misappropriated the amounts. Therefore, the applicant was terminated and criminal case was lodged against the applicant and he came to be acquitted in the criminal proceedings. The opponent filed three suits to recover the amounts misappropriated by the applicant and the suits were decreed. The appeals preferred against the decree were also dismissed. Therefore, money decree passed by the trial Court has become final. In view of the fact that the applicant was discharging the duty in the Electricity Board, it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant more particularly when the decree is passed in respect of the amounts misappropriated. Therefore, these applications cannot be entertained.
Learned advocate for the applicant states that Reference against his termination is pending before the Labour Court and therefore money decree should be stayed. In my view, mere pending of legal proceedings would not entitle applicant for stay of money decree.
In the result, these applications fail and stand dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly.
(BANKIM N. MEHTA, J) (pkn) Top