SCA/10729/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10729 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= JUNAGADH DISTT FOOPERATIVE BANK LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus MOHANBHAI MADANBHAI & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RM CHHAYA for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR ND NANAVATI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR SURESH M SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, 4, MS ANILA G SHUKLA for Respondent(s) : 2, RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 3,5 - 6. MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 7, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 13/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has preferred the petition for SCA/10729/1994 2/3 JUDGMENT challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.65/1993, whereby the order fastening liabilities is set aside against three persons namely; Mohanbhai Mandanbhai, Samaju Raghav and Samaju Bhikha. 2. Heard Mr.Buch for Mr.Nanavati, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Shah, learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 4 and Ms.Patel, learned AGP for respondent No.7. 3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal partly against the aforesaid three persons namely; Mohanbhai Mandanbhai, Samaju Raghav and Samaju Bhikha, mainly on the ground that there was no direct evidence for fastening the liabilities since the signature over the cheque was of Deva Odha, who was President of the Society. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner wanted the Court to re-appreciate the evidence and to take a different view than the view taken by the Tribunal. SCA/10729/1994 3/3 JUDGMENT 5. In my view, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, re-appreciation of the evidence may not be permissible, unless it is perverse to the record of the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any material on the basis of which it can be said that there was direct involvement in the mismanagement or misfeasance, for which the inquiry was conducted under Section 93 of the Act and the liabilities were fastened. 6. In view of the above, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be said as illegal, which may warrant the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Therefore, the petition lacks merits. Hence, dismissed. Rule discharged. 13.2.2008 (Jayant Patel, J.) vinod