IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4050 of 2018 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4051 of 2018 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4052 of 2018 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4053 of 2018 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4054 of 2018

DEVENDRAPRASAD BHAGVANJI PANDYA Versus THE MADHAVPURA MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD(IN LIQUIDATION) ======================================================

======================================================

Appearance:

MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,8.1,8.2,9 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

Date : 12/10/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

1. Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant in each of the appeals has invited the attention of the court to the award dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 98 of 2003 and allied matters to point out that the appellants herein were not parties in those proceedings. It was pointed out that in those proceedings, the parties namely the plaintiff and the defendants have settled the dispute between them whereby, the defendants have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.102.50 crores. It is submitted that the Arbitrator has, thereafter, directed that for the balance dues, suits be instituted against the then office bearers of the respondent No. 1 bank.

• 2. It was submitted that pursuant to the said order, the respondent No. 1 bank has instituted the present suits being Arbitration Suits No. 1 to 5 of 2017 against original defendants as well as against the appellant herein, wherein, no relief is claimed against the defendants No. 1 to 7 namely the original defendants whereas, relief is claimed against the defendants No. 8 to 10 namely the then office bearers and their heirs and legal representatives. The attention of the court was invited to the provisions of section 85 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 to point out that the same provides for the period of limitation for referring a dispute to arbitration. It was submitted that the present case would fall within the ambit of clause (2) of subsection (1) of section 85 which provides for a dispute to be referred within a period of six years from the date of act or omission occurs and therefore, the present suits are hopelessly time barred. It was further submitted that in the previous suits the parties could not have settled the dispute for part of the outstanding amount and saddled the then office bearers with the liability of the balance amount.
• 3. This court finds substance in the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant and is accordingly of the view that the appeals require consideration. Hence, Admit.

[ Harsha Devani, J. ]

[ A. S. Supehia, J. ]

hiren