(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR) This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th September, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8197 of 2011. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, which was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and confirmed the order passed by the learned Cooperative Tribunal. The appellant herein was a store keeper serving in the respondent No.1 Mandli. In view of mis-appropriation of some funds, the appellant was subjected to recovery of the amount by the respondent No.1 Mandli. The learned Board of Nominee, Rajkot adjudicated the said dispute in Lavad Case No.10 of 1994 and it was held by the learned Board of Nominee, Rajkot vide order dated 30th January, 2001 that the appellant is required to pay the amount of Rs.10,68,113/- jointly and severally. The said order of the learned Board of Nominee, Rajkot was challenged by the present appellant before the learned Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad vide Appeal No.55 of 2005. The learned Cooperative Tribunal partly allowed the said Appeal by judgment and order dated 31st July, 2009 only qua interest part and thereby reduced the interest from 18% cumulative interest to 12% simple interest.
The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 3 of the order, which is impugned here in the present appeal, has observed that learned counsel for the petitioner has made only one submission and has requested to reduce rate of interest from 12% simple interest to 9% simple interest. Considering the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge was of the view that decision of the Cooperative Tribunal is just and proper in reducing the rate of interest from and it is not possible for the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to reduce the rate of interest further. Since that was the only objection, the learned Single Judge has not accepted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant herein.
The learned counsel for the appellant has argued only limited point that interest may be appropriately reduced.
It is required to be noted that the matter before the learned Single Judge was under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal. However, since we have not find any merits in Appeal against the impugned order as the only dispute is with regard to reduction in rate of interest, without examining the larger question as to whether the present Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable or not, present Appeal stands dismissed.
Consequently, Civil Application No.7081 of 2012 for stay does not survive and stands disposed of.
(P.B.
Majmudar, J) (Mohinder Pal, J) Anup Top