K.S. Jhaveri, J.@mdashBy way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.3.2009 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal in Revision Application No. 45 of 2009 and consequently restoring the order dated 23.7.2008 passed by the Board of Nominees in Summary Lavad Suit No. 144 of 2004. By the said order, the Tribunal has remanded the matter.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No. 3 was in service of the petitioner Bank as its Manager. Respondent No. 1 is his daughter and respondent No. 2 is his son. Respondent No. 4 is a partnership firm of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that the respondent No. 3 while serving as Manager of the Bank, got opened Loan Account No. COD 005 in his name on 24.11.1999. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 3 while serving as Manager, opened Loan Account No. ODP 001 for Rs. 5 lakhs in the name of respondent No. 4 partnership firm, namely, Harisiddhi Enterprise, for which the respondent NO. 3 stood as guarantor and mortgaged his property. In short, it is the case that the respondent No. 3 has, misusing his power, sanctioned loan amounts in favour of his relatives and thereby misappropriated the funds of the Bank.
2.1 On finding the fraud, the Bank filed Summary Lavad Suit No. 144 of 2004 against the respondents for recovering an amount of Rs. 15,26,532.95. The Reserve Bank of India by its directive imposed a restriction upon the functioning of the Bank u/s 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to supersede the Board of Directors and on 19.2.2005, an Administrator was appointed. The Reserve Bank of India cancelled the Banking Licence of the petitioner Bank and Liquidators were appointed. The petitioner Bank filed the counter affidavit before the Board of Nominees. On 23.8.2008, the Board of Nominees, after going through the record, passed a conditional order of depositing 30% of the suit amount within 30 days thereof and on that condition, granted leave to defend.
2.2 The respondents preferred revision application after about four months, before the Cooperative Tribunal along with Misc. Application No. 295 of 2008 for condonation of delay along with an application for stay. The respondents filed a composite reply opposing the same along with fifteen documents. The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay application on 30.1.2009 and observed that the contentions raised by the Bank in its reply at Exh.15 shall be considered at the time of deciding the stay application.
2.3 The Tribunal after hearing the parties, passed an order on 12.3.2009 remanding the matter by setting aside the order of the Board of Nominees.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the order of the Tribunal, in my view, the contentions which are raised by the petitioner were not considered by the Tribunal properly which were required to be viewed seriously. However, In my opinion, the interest of justice will be met by passing the following order:
The petitioner Bank will approach the Board of Nominees, Surat on 4.10.2010 with proper application and will request to take up the Summary Lavad Suit No. 144 of 2004 for conditional leave and the Board of Nominees, Surat will give a particular date and thereafter decide the conditional leave application on day-to-day basis and decide the same by 31.10.2010.
4. It is made clear that the observations which are made by the Tribunal are only tentative opinion and will not be binding to the Board of Nominees.
5. With the above observations and directions, the petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
