JAI AMBE ICE FACTORY Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Raval, learned Counsel for the respondent waives service of rule. With the consent of the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today. Since the facts are common and common questions are involved in both the petitions, they are being considered by this common judgement.

(2.) The facts appear to be that the Verval Peoples Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") filed Lavad Suit No.92/1999 against the petitioners of SCA No.8488/2003 and the said Bank filed Lavad Suit No.91/1999 against the petitioners of SCA No.8490/2003. It is the case of the petitioners that before the learned Nominee they had engaged the lawyer, but for one reason or another, the lawyer of the petitioners could not defend the suit and the learned Nominee consequently, passed ex-parte judgement and award dated 31-3-2000 in both the suits, directing the concerned defendants to pay the amounts with the interest at the rate of 17.5% plus 2% penal interest and the cost of Rs.5165/=, in Lavad Suit No.92/1999. So far as Lavad Suit No.91/1999 is concerned, the award was passed for the sum of Rs.8,67,607.30 with the interest at the rate of 18% plus 2% penal interest and also the cost of Rs.5,065/=. It is the case of the petitioners herein that the appeals were preferred against the said ex-parte judgement and award of the learned Nominee passed in both the suits. Even before the Gujarat State Coop. Tribunal, the Advocate of the petitioners did not remain present and consequently both the appeals came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal. The Recovery Officer of the Bank, respondent herein, issued the demand notice and also took further steps in this regard for recovery of the amount as per the award.

(3.) Mr.Vyas, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended, inter alia, that the judgement and award passed by the learned Nominee is an ex-parte award in both the matters and in any case, in the proceedings of the Appeals before the Tribunal, the learned Advocate could not remain present and the ground before the Tribunal is shown as that of sickness and telegram to that effect was sent. However, he submitted that thereafter the restoration application was submitted before the Tribunal and pending such restoration application, the amounts were sought to be recovered and, therefore, these petitions. Mr.Vyas also submitted that for default on the part of the lawyer, the petitioners should not be made to suffer. Mr.Vyas also submitted that there are good defence in both the suits, if the suits are allowed to be tried on merits.