JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD Vs. BHARATI HEMANT SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -ALL these writ petitions are before me for admission. These petitions are filed on behalf of Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. under peculiar circumstances. Since, all these petitions involve common point of law and similar facts, I am disposing of these petitions at the admission stage itself by this common order.

(2.) FROM the record it appears that in the year 1983 the petitioner?bank filed one dispute against the firm M/s. Had Mahadev Vaidya in the Cooperative Court at Pune for recovery of an amount of Rs. 46,67,000/?. The said dispute was compromised and by consent the said firm M/s. Hari mahadev Vaidya agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 49,21,88 2/? in full and final settlement towards the dues. Further, as per the said consent terms, the bank was appointed as Receiver to run the shop. Accordingly, the petitioner?bank took possession of the shop run by M/s. Hari Mahadev Vaidya in the capacity of Court Receiver. During the said time when petitioner?bank was conducting the business as Court Receiver, Respondent No. 1 in this petition as well as respondent No. 1 in other five petitions, sold their gold ornaments for the agreed amount. After the sale of gold, instead of paying the said amount directly to the respective respondents, the petitioner?bank deposited the aforesaid sum in different accounts in the name of those respondents Nos. 1 in all these six writ petitions.

(3.) AFTER the sale of their gold ornaments in the year 1984 to the petitioner?bank as Court Receiver, since they could not get their amount, which they were entitled to get immediately after the sale of the gold ornaments respondent No 1 in this petition as well as in the other five petitions filed dispute against the petitioner?bank for the recovery of their amount due to them against the sale of their respective gold ornaments. They also filed their applications before the trial Court for permission to file suit against the court Receiver. The said leave was granted by the Court on November 1, 1989. The appeal against this order was preferred by the petitioner?bank which also came to be dismissed and against the said dismissal the petitioner?bank has preferred these writ petitions.