Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 286 (GUJ)

Paresh Rameshbhai Parekh v. Reserve Bank of India

2009-04-21

RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2009
Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—No one is present on behalf of Messrs Vyas Associates for the petitioner. Heard Mr. Sharad B. Vakil, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. H.V. Chhatrapati for Respondent No. 1. Learned Senior Advocate invited attention of the Court to the prayer clause wherein the petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “32(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the resp.no.1 Reserve Bank of India and the resp.no.2 Registrar, Co-operative Societies, to take appropriate action forthwith against the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Banks and further be pleased to direct them to make a detailed investigation regarding the management of the aforesaid Banks and take prompt proper legal action including filing of criminal complaints against the persons who are found to be responsible for the fraud;” 2. Learned Senior Advocate further invited attention of the Court to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2-Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gandhinagar, affirmed by Mr. A.S. Khandar, Joint Registrar (Audit), wherein in Para 9 it is specifically stated that, “9. With reference to Paragraph (7) of the petition, it is submitted that the Respondent No. 1 after conducting the inspection of the Respondent No. 4-Suryapur Co-operative Bank Ltd., Surat with respet to its financial position as on 30/6/2002 and the liquidity problem faced by the bank in September, 2002 issued direction under Section 35(A) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 vied order dated 3 September, 2002 and issued requisition on 29 January, 2003 under Section 115(A) of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act read with Section 2 (gg) of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act indicating the Respondent No. 2 to supersede the board of directions of Respondent No. 4. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 superseded the board of directors vide its order dated 5 February 2003 and appointed an Administrator. It is submitted that the Surypur Co-operative Bank filed SCA No. 9033/2003 and SCA No. 1121 of 2003 challenging the order of supersession of the board passed by Respondent No. 2. The Hon’ble High Court passed an interim order on 7 February, 2003. Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to vacate interim order dated 7 February, 2003 after hearing the parties on 25/9/2003. However, SCA 1121/2003 is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court passed an interim order on 7 February, 2003. Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to vacate interim order dated 7 February, 2003 after hearing the parties on 25/9/2003. However, SCA 1121/2003 is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The administrator R.R. Vaghasia, District Registrar Co-operative Societies, Surat had taken over the charge on 26/9/2003. The statutory audit of the bank under Section 84 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and rules thereunder by concern auditor for the period of 2001-02, 2002-03 is completed. Thereafter, the auditor submitted special report on 8.4.2004 to the Registrar for taking actions under Sections 86, 93, 76(B) and 107 of the Act for misappropriation of funds and other administrative deficiencies. Thereafter, the administrator has taken necessary steps by filing civil and criminal actions against the borrowers and directors. 40 criminal cases are also lodged with the Surat Police. The investigation is under process. The Respondent No. 2 has sent a recommendation on dated 29/7/2004 to the Reserve Bank of India for giving permissions under Section 115(A)(3) for liquidating the Suryapur Co-operative Bank Limited, Surat. As such the statutory action are being taken by the Department.” which pertains to Respondent No. 4, i.e. Suryapur Co-operative Bank Ltd. So far as Para 10 is concerned, which pertains to Respondent No. 3-The City Co-operative Bank Ltd. 3. In view of the averments made in Paras 9 and 10 nothing survives in the matter. 4. It is also submitted by Mr. Vakil, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 1-Reserve Bank of India that Special Civil Application No. 1121 of 2003 was dismissed by this Court by order dated 12th November, 2008. 5. This petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. Ad interim relief granted earlier is vacated. No order as to cost. 6. As the main matter is disposed of Civil Application No. 6215 of 2004 does not survive. The same is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged.