AMBAJI MATA DEVASTHAN TRUST Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING the controversy involved in the petition, the same is taken up for hearing and final disposal today. Rule. Learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents are directed to waive service of Rule.

(2.) THE case has a chequered history. However, for the present the following brief facts may be recorded. The petitioner-Trust had placed certain deposits by way of fixed deposits for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs with respondent No. 2 Bank. It appears that the said amount was not returned and hence the petitioner Trust filed Summary Suit No. 1414 of 1997 against respondent No. 2 Bank before City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. On 23. 9. 1997 the judgment and decree came to be made in the said suit. Despite the decree, as respondent No. 2 Bank did not make payment, execution proceedings being Execution Petition No. 208 of 2000 were initiated. During pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner Trust came to know that respondent No. 2 Bank had been ordered to be taken into liquidation and a Liquidator appointed. Therefore the petitioner-Trust filed application under section 112 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 seeking permission to proceed ahead with the execution proceedings.

(3.) PERMISSION was refused by the Registrar and such refusal order confirmed by the Revisional Authority against which the petitioner carried the matter before this High Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 19874 of 2007. On 30. 10. 2007 this Court allowed the said petition holding that order of priority fixed by the Liquidator on the basis of various Circulars issued by the Registrar cannot be upheld because of judgment rendered in Special Civil Application No. 11615 of 2004 and cognate matters. The Registrar himself issued a Circular on 17. 10. 2007 on the basis of judgment of the High Court directing all Liquidators that they should take decision themselves in light of provisions of sections 107 to 115 of the Act and all Circulars issued in relation to fixation of order of priority were cancelled. The Court noted that the Liquidator had fixed the order of priority on the basis of earlier Circulars which stood cancelled and hence learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 therein, viz. , the Liquidator made a statement on the basis of written communication from the Liquidator that the order of priority shall be determined after taking into consideration the claims of the secured creditors. Therefore, after hearing the parties the orders made by the Registrar and the Revisional Authority were quashed and set aside and application dated 4. 3. 2004 filed by the petitioner Trust was restored to file of Registrar for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.