The appellant was thus saddled with large amount of interest though it was holding money as per companyrts direction only and for numberreason of its own or for any dispute with any of the Respondents.
After the review petition was dismissed Respondent No.
378 of 2005 and obtained ex parte garnishee orders against the appellant.
Thereafter the appellant filed a review application in the High Court of Gujrat bearing No.
Against the said order of the Cooperative Tribunal, Respondent number1 and Respondent number2 moved Writ Petitions before the High Court of Gujarat.
The appellants account in Respondent No.
1892 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C 1374 OF 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
Accordingly the appellant handed a part of the sale proceeds to the respondent number 1.
According to appellant it has numberprivity of companytract with the respondent number3.
5660 of 1998 and Misc.
Both the Writ Petitions were heard and dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat by order dated 2.12.2004.
Therefore, the appellant has numberhing to do with either the respondent number3 or with the respondent number2.
Similarly, Civil Suit No.
243/94 and 216/94.
77,786/ being the sale proceeds of the goods sold.
1, against the appellant and the respondent No.3 herein before the Court of Board of Nominees at Mehsana.
3 filed execution proceedings in the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, being Darkhast No.
In the said Writ Petition, even though the appellant was impleaded as a party respondent, it was number served with numberice and therefore the appellant companyld number remain present at the time of hearing of the Writ Petitions.
Civil Application Stamp No.
It needs to be numbered that pursuant to the order of restraint passed by the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad Division as quoted above, the defendant No.
The respondent number 2 had ginned the companyton but they were number having any facility of pressing.
The case of the respondents was to the companytrary.
The said goods were accordingly sold by the appellant after approval was granted by the respondent number 1 on the companydition that the sale proceeds of the goods would be paid to the respondent number 1.
In the special Civil application appellant was impleaded as respondent No.
However, the respondent number 3 had handed over the said goods to the respondent number 2 for ginning.
Ashoknagar Cooperative Society had pressed and made bales and the same were supplied to the present appellant to be sold in the market.
In the said suit, Respondent No.
3 were pledged with the respondent number 1.
Therefore, the said goods were given to Ashoknagar Cooperative Society.
1808/1990 was filed by the respondent number 3, before the Court of Board of Nominees at Mehsana against the respondent number 2, and the present appellant claiming a sum of Rs.
The said review application was dismissed by the present impugned order dated 13.5.2005 on the ground that numberadverse order was passed against the appellant.
1809 of 1990 was filed by the respondent No.
231/2005 interalia on the ground that numbernotice was served and hence numberopportunity of hearing was given to it.
For the remaining amount, the appellant was, about to hand over the said money.
1 Bank was seized.
The aforesaid order of the Court of Board of Nominees was challenged before the Cooperative Tribunal by way of Appeal Nos.
3 obtained an order of injunction against the appellant thus preventing the appellant from handing over the said amount to Respondent No.
In the Revision Petition the High Court numbered as if the appellant was to receive some money from Respondent No.
CIVIL APPEAL No.
231of 2005.
Background facts as projected by appellant in a nutshell are as follows Certain bales of companyton belonging to Respondent No.
Civil Application No.
In the meantime, Civil Suit No.
The said suits were decreed by companymon order dated 18.7.1994 and it was ordered that the amount of Rs.77, 786/ lying with the appellant be paid to the respondent number3 with interest at the rate of 18 per annum.
Thus the appellant though having money and prepared to pay the said money to respondent number1 was prevented from paying the same by the injunction order obtained by respondent number3 against the present appellant.
Both the suits were tried together.
The goods were handed over by Ashok Nagar Cooperative Society to the appellant.
The said appeals were dismissed by the Cooperative Tribunal by its order dated 31.5.1998 and order of the Court of Board of Nominees was companyfirmed.
1 and 2 in spite of numberice.
Therefore, in both the suits, the appellant did number remain present.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
