LexUTTAR GUJARAT S.R.V. SANGH LTD. versus M/S. MEHSANA DIST. CENT. CO-OP. BANK LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 4 S.C.R. 760 UTTAR GUJARAT S.R.V. SANGH LTD. V. M/S. MEHSANA DIST. CENT. CO-OP. BANK LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1892 of 2008) MARCH 11, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Principles of natural justice - Opportunity of hearing - c Denial of - Pursuant to injunction order obtained by respondent no.3, appellant was restrained from making payment to respondent No. 1 - Thereafter Court of Nominees passed decree ordering appellant to make payment to respondent no.3 with interest@ 18% p.a. - Writ petition by 0 respondent no. 1 and 2 wherein though appellant impleaded but not served with notice - Writ petition dismissed - Review also dismissed on the ground that no adverse order was passed against appellant - On appeal, held: Though appellant was party in Writ petition, matter was disposed of without hearing appellant - In Review Application, High Court E proceeded on entirely erroneous premises - Since appellant, without getting an opportunity of being heard and/or presenting its case has been saddled with the liability, matter is remitted to High Court for fresh disposal. F Certain bales of cotton belonging to the respondent no. 3 were pledged with the respondent no. 1. However, the respondent no. 3 handed over the said goods to the respondent no. 2 for ginning. The respondent no. 2 ginned the cotton and gave these goods to a Cooperative Society G for pressing and making bales which were then supplied to the appellant for sale in market. The goods were accordingly sold by the appellant after obtaining approval from the respondent no. 1 on the condition that the sale proceeds of the goods would be paid to the respondent H 760 • UTTAR GUJARAT S.R.V. SANGH LTD. v. M/S. MEHSANA 761 DIST. CENT. CO-OP. BANK LTD. & ORS . .. no.1. Accordingly the appellant handed a part of the sale A proceeds to the respondent no. 1. The appellant was, about to hand over the remaining money. Meanwhile the respondent no. 3 filed a suit before the Court of Board of Nominees against the respondent no. 2, and the appellant claiming Rs. 77,786/-being the sale proceeds of the goods B sold. In the said suit, Respondent No. 3 obtained an order of injunction against the appellant thus preventing the appellant from handing over the said amount to Respondent No. 1. Similarly another suit was filed by the respondent No. 1, against the appellant and the c respondent No.3 before the Court of Board of Nominees. Both the suits were tried together. By common order, the Court of Board of nominees ordered that the amount of Rs.77, 786/- lying with the appellant be paid to the respondent no.3 with interest at D ·-< the rate of 18% per annum. The appellant was thus saddled with large amount of interest though it was holding money as per court's direction only and for no reason of its own or for any dispute with any of the Respondents. E Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2 filed Writ Petitions before the High Court. In the said Writ Petition, even though the appellant was impleaded as a party respondent, it was not served with notice and therefore the appellant did not remain present at the lime of hearing F of the Writ Petitions. Both the Writ Petitions were heard and dismissed. Appellant filed review application which was dismissed on the ground that no 'adverse order' was G· passed against the appellant. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: Pursuant to the order of restraint passed by H 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. A tile Board of Nominees, the appellant was restrained from gi•ting or making payment to respondent No.1. Though appellant was a party in the Special Civil Application, the matter was disposed of without hearing the appellant. hi the neview Application the High Court proceeded on B entirely erroneous premises. The ultimate result is that the appellant, without getting an opportunity of being heard and/or presenting its case has been saddled with the liability. [Para 9] [765-F, G, H; 766-A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. C 1892 of 2008 · From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2005 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application (Stamp Number) No. 231of2005 D MahendraAnand, Rajan Narain, fortheAppellant. Sarla Chandra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.