SCA/4577/1998 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4577 of 1998 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 ? ========================================================= SHREE VARDHMAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. - Petitioner(s) Versus SARVODAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS LILU K BHAYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, DELETED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. MR BHARAT JANI for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 02/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner has made various prayers from the inception of the inquiry at the time when the licence was granted till the stage where the financial SCA/4577/1998 2/2 JUDGMENT condition of the respondent – Bank has been deteriorated. 2. So far as Reserve Bank of India is concerned, the challenge is withdrawn on 14th December, 1999, as per the order passed. Therefore, none of the reliefs survive against the Reserve Bank of India. 3. Apart from the above, the subsequent development shows that the Reserve Bank of India has issued directives for controlling the operation of the Bank under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act. Not only that, the elected body of the Bank has been superseded and thereafter, the Bank is ordered to be liquidated. The Liquidator is appointed and the proceedings of liquidation are going on. 4. Under these circumstances, in view of the aforesaid development, the relief prayed by the petitioner against the Bank, in any case, would not survive. Hence, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. ( Jayant Patel, J. ) hki