KUSUMBEN NARANDAS PATEL Vs. SWAMI GUNATITNAGAR CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
KUSUMBEN NARANDAS PATEL
Swami Gunatitnagar Co Op Housing Society Ltd
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioners are the member of the respondent Societies residing in tenement No. 47. The Society passed a Resolution dated 26. 12. 1993 for expulsion of the petitioners as members on the grounds mentioned in the Resolution. On 10. 01. 1994, the petitioner filed Lavad Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction praying that the proceedings of the meeting dated 26. 12. 1993 are illegal, malafide, void etc. and the permanent injunction was also prayed restraining the Society or its agents or servants from implementing the proceedings of the meeting dated 26. 12. 1993. The learned Nominee entertained the suit and passed order on 15. 02. 1994 below application for temporary injunction, whereby the interim injunction came to be granted restraining the Society, its members, and agents from implementing the proceedings of the meeting dated 26. 12. 1993. It appears that the respondent Society carried the matter in revision being Revision Application No. 106/94 before the Gujarat Cooperative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the sides, passed the Judgement on 28. 06. 1995, whereby the revision was dismissed and principally accepted the contention that as on the date when the suit was filed, no proposal was pending before the District Registrar, the Nominee had the jurisdiction. It appears that thereafter, the Society filed Review Application No. 20/95 against the said Judgement of the Tribunal and the Tribunal thereafter, heard the review application and vide another Judgement dated 15. 09. 1997, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Nominee and also recalled and reviewed the earlier Judgment of the another Bench of the Tribunal. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached to this Court by preferring the present petition.
(2.) HEARD Mr. K. D. Shah for Mr. Mehta for the petitioner and Ms. Thakore for Mr. Joshi for the respondents.
(3.) AS such, the facts are not in dispute and the principal aspect deserves for consideration is the exercise of the power by another Bench of the Tribunal in review. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Tribunal cannot exercise the power of review as if to sit in appeal over the judgement of the Tribunal delivered earlier. Whereas, it is the contention of the respondent that if there is error apparent on the face of the record for not properly considering the binding decisions of this Court, such can be corrected in review and the Tribunal was well within the power to review the judgement and has rightly allowed the revision application by setting aside the order of the learned Nominee in the Suit proceedings.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.