DOSHI CHEMICALS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to delete respondent No.3.

(2.) I have heard Mr.B.M. Mangukiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms.M.S. Panchal, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.Nanavati with Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4-City Co-operative Bank and Shri Jaykrushna Maganlal Mevawala, Mr. Dharmesh Shah V. Shah, learned counsel for The Suryapur Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mr. Mihir Joshi with Mr.S.N. Thakkar, learned counsel for The Pragati Alco-chem Private Ltd., and Mr.P.S. Champaneri, learned counsel appearing for Parinay Organizers Private Ltd., Mr.Mukeshbhai N. Desai, Niraj D.Desai, Kumud B.Desai, Bharat M. Naik and Mr.B.B. Naik for Babu Gamit and Jagdish Chandulal Jariwala who is wrongly described as Jhaveri for final disposal of the petition. The Respondent No.3 is deleted but for the sake of convenience parties shall be referred to as original , prior the such deletion.

(3.) It appears that there is dispute for transaction of loan between original respondent No.4 Bank and the petitioner herein as well as original respondent No.6 and its Director and also original respondent No.5 Bank. However, it appears that the suits were filed by the original respondent No.5 Bank before the Registrar's Board of Nominees for recovery of the amount of alleged loan transaction. It appears that as per the original respondent No.6 Bank, the consent pursis were filed and based on the same, consent awards were passed by the learned Nominee. As per some of the respondents, who moved the application for restoration (fari file), the consent awards were upon the fraud played and upon mis-representation and, therefore, they did pray to the learned Nominee of setting aside and recalling of the concerned consent awards and examine the matter afresh. It appears that the learned Nominee upon the said application for fari file (restoration/recalling) issued notice to the petitioner who was plaintiff in the suit and other parties and at that stage the original respondent No.4 Bank preferred revisions before the Tribunal challenging the initiation of the proceedings by the order by the learned Nominee. The Tribunal ultimately rejected the revision against which SCA Nos.4400 to 4402, 4410 and 4411 of 2004 were preferred by the original respondent No.4 Bank and the said petitions have been disposed of vide order dated 22.3.2006 passed by this Court observing, inter alia, that there is jurisdiction with the learned Nominee to examine the aspect of fraud or misrepresentation etc., if any, while passing consent awards and, therefore, it may not be necessary to refer to the said aspects in the present proceedings.