SUBODHBHAI AMBALAL GANDHI Vs. DWARKESH CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Mr.Shah for the petitioner states that inadvertently, respondent no.4 is joined as party respondent in the present proceedings though it was never the party before the Courts below. He, therefore, seeks permission to delete respondent no.4 from the cause title of the present petition. Permission as sought for is granted. Respondent no.4 stands deleted as party from the present petition.

(2.) By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is original defendant no.2 in Lavad Suit No.1508 of 2000 has challenged the order dated 26.10.2005 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal ("the Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application being Misc. Application No.483 of 2005 preferred by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal against the judgment and award/decision dated 18.10.2001 passed in Lavad Suit No.1508 of 2000 by the learned Board of Nominees.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner submitted that the learned Board of Nominees passed ex-parte decision against the petitioner and the petitioner was never communicated with the award passed by the learned Board of Nominees. He submitted that as mandated by Rule 41(4) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules, 1965 ("the Rules"), the learned Board of Nominees was required to communicate the award passed by it to each of the parties by either of three different modes, however, the petitioner was never sent the award by the learned Board of Nominees and only through darkhast proceedings, the petitioner could know that the learned Board of Nominees had passed award, however, for the purpose of filing appeal before the Tribunal, the period for limitation would start reckoning from the date of communication of award by the Board of Nominees as required by Rule 41(4) of the Rules. He submitted that since the darkhast proceedings were initiated, the petitioner consumed time in opposing the darkhast proceedings but it could not be said that the petitioner had no intention to challenge the award of the learned Board of Nominees by preferring the appeal before the Tribunal and in the process of facing darkhast proceedings some more time had lapsed, but since, the award is not communicated to the petitioner, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay occurred in filing the appeal before it on the ground that the petitioner was never communicated with the award by the learned Board of Nominees.