GUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. v. RAMESHBHAI NATHUBHAI CHAUDHARY
Court: High Court of Gujarat
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Gujarat judgment dated 2025-07-15. GUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. v. RAMESHBHAI NATHUBHAI CHAUDHARY....
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9352 of 2025 ========================================================== GUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. Versus RAMESHBHAI NATHUBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA AND MR DIPAN DESAI (6765) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR. ARCHIT P JANI(7304) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Date : 15/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity th of order dated 25 June, 2025 passed by Deputy Secretary (Appeals) – respondent No. 3, by which th order dated 07 May, 2025 passed by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of Gujarat, has been stayed. 2.
Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi with learned advocate Mr. Rahul Dholakia and learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Archit Jani for respondent No. 1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. After hearing the matter, a broad consensus has been arrived at between the parties wherein the learned advocates for the respective parties have requested this Court to not to decide the present petition on merits. However, both the learned advocates have jointly requested this Court that if the main Revision pending before respondent No. 3 be directed to be decided within some stipulated time, in that event, interest of justice would be sub-served. 3. 1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader has no objection, however, on instructions, requested that 12 weeks time may be granted to the authorities to decide the Revision Application. 4.
Considering the aforesaid, without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order th dated 25 June, 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to decide the Revision within a period of 12 weeks from today strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced by the order of this Court. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open, to be agitated before respondent No. 3. 5. Needless to clarify that during the pendency of the Revision, any subsequent event pursuant to the amended bylaws, would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings pending before the respondent No. 3. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) ANUP
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.