SHARADA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED Vs. KIFARUTECH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Respondents waive notice.

(2.) ALL these writ petitions can be disposed of together by a common order. The State Co-operative Appellate Tribunal has disposed of all the appeals by a common order which is impugned in these petitions. The grievance made in the present writ petitions would be answered by persuing the impugned order itself. It is, therefore, apposite to reproduce the entire order that has been passed by the Appellate Court while disposing of the appeals.

(3.) ON plain reading of the said order there can be no two opinions that the manner of disposal of the appeals leaves much to be desired. Such approach is questionable one, for more than one reason. The Court in the zest for disposal of the matters ought not to decide the matter unjustly or irrationally. The facts that can be culled out from the impugned order are that the matters were not on board but were taken on board upon mentioning obviously at the instance of the respondents. Moreover, the Advocate for the petitioner bank was not present in the Court at the relevant time and only the representative of the petitioner Bank Mr. R. S. Shende, the Deputy Chief Officer was present, who was identified by the Counsel appearing for the respondents. What transpired before the lower Court is not the issue before me, but the grievance made in the present writ petitions is that the Appellate Court has not addressed itself to the merits of the contentions in the appeal, but it proceeded on the assumption that the proposal given by the respondents would be acceptable to the bank. This is evident from the observation made by the Appellate Court that "if the Bank accepts the proposal then there is no reason why the Appeals should continue. " The Appellate Court has therefore assumed that the respondents proposal would be acted upon by the petitioner bank and therefore disposed of the appeals in terms of the proposal. The best course for the Appellate Court would have been to await the response of the Bank and its decision by the competent authority and only thereafter proceed to dispose of the appeals in terms of the proposal. But this is not what has happened in the present matters. In any case, without going into the approach adopted by the Appellate Court, I would think it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matters to the Appellate Court for reconsideration in accordance with law.