[1.0] As common question of law and facts arise in this Letters Patent Appeal as well as the Special Civil Applications and are between the same parties, present Letters Patent Appeal as well as Special Civil Applications are heard finally together and decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. [1.1] Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009 under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the appellants herein – petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12272 of 2008 challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12272 of 2008 by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Application on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioners, by way of either to submit an appropriate application for Review before the learned Board of Nominees or Appeal before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal.
[1.2] Special Civil Application No.5649 of 2010 has been preferred by the petitioner – The Baroda Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited – original plaintiff of Summary Lavad Case No.151 of 2003 to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2005 passed by the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara in Summary Lavad Case No.151 of 2003 as well as the order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No.215 of 2007. It is also further prayed to declare that the act of custodian in satisfying the judgment and decree passed in Summary Lavad Case No.151 of 2003 as illegal whereby the accounts of respondent is settled as per the order of the learned Board of Nominees.
[1.3] Special Civil Application No.5687 of 2010 has been preferred by the petitioner – original defendant – The Baroda Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2005 passed by the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 as well as the impugned order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No.217 of 2007.
[1.4] Special Civil Application No.5650 of 2010 has been preferred by the petitioner – original plaintiff – The Baroda Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 15.04.2005 passed by the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara in Summary Lavad Case No.152 of 2003 as well as the impugned order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No.216 of 2007.
[2.0] Facts leading to present Letters Patent Appeal as well as the Special Civil Applications in nutshell are as under:
[2.1] That the Baroda Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”) original creditor – original plaintiff instituted Summary Lavad Case No.151 of 2003 against the original defendant – debtor Shri U.R. Dangarwala and Company before the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara for recovery of Rs.43,58,088.48 ps. with respect to the cash credit to the original defendant. That a similar suit came to be filed by the Bank against original defendant Smt. Jayshriben Umesbhai Dangarwala before the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara being Summary Lavad Case No.152 of 2003 for recovery of Rs.10,07,935/. It appears that in both the suits the defendant submitted the application for leave to defend which came to be granted by the learned Board of Nominees. It appears that in the aforesaid lavad suits the original plaintiff – Bank led the evidence, documentary as well as oral. However, the original defendant did not lead any evidence either oral or written.
[2.2] That during the pendency of the aforesaid suits the aforesaid original defendant – U.R. Dangarwala & Company as well as Smt. Jayshriben Umeshbhai Dangarwala instituted Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 against the Bank before the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara for a declaration that the amount of Rs.62,22,000/ lying in the sundry account be given credit in the account of the plaintiffs. It is required to be noted at this stage that the aforesaid Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 was instituted by the aforesaid plaintiffs – defendants of Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 when the said suits were at the stage of crossexamination of the witness. It appears that in the said Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, an application Exh.5 was submitted by the said plaintiffs and the Bank filed the written statement/reply to the application Exh.5 as well as the Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 submitting that the said suit is not maintainable at all. The said suit was at the stage of hearing of application Exh.5 and even written submissions were submitted with respect to the interim application Exh.5. Even the arguments were made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties with respect to application Exh.5 only. However, by judgment and award dated 08.04.2005, the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara passed an order below Exh.1 and Exh.5 in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 and allowed the said suits without framing issues and/or without even permitting the parties to lead the evidence and directed the Bank to give credit of Rs.62,22,000/ in the account of the original plaintiffs Shri U.R. Dangarwala and Company and Smt. Jayshriben Umeshbhai Dangarwala – original defendants of Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003.
[2.3] That thereafter the aforesaid Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 came up before the learned Board of Nominees and by judgment and award dated 15.04.2005 partly allowed the aforesaid suits and actually decreed the suits. However, considering the judgment and award passed in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 (referred to hereinabove), the learned Board of Nominees passed an order to adjust the said amount in the account of the said defendants and further passed an order that after giving credit of the aforesaid amount in the account of the defendants, the entire award is satisfied.
[2.4] At this stage it is required to be noted that at the relevant time the Bank was in administration and management of the custodian and unfortunately the custodian accepted the aforesaid judgment and awards passed in Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 and Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004. That thereafter the Bank preferred Appeal No.215 of 2007 (against the judgment and award passed in Summary Lavad Case No.151 of 2003); Appeal No.216 of 2007 (against the judgment and award passed in Summary Lavad Case No.152 of 2003) and Appeal No.217 of 2007 (against the judgment and award passed in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004) before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the learned Tribunal by impugned common judgment and order dated 30.09.2009 has dismissed the said Appeals on the ground that the judgment and award passed in aforesaid suits have been accepted by the custodian of the Bank and the judgment and award passed in aforesaid suits have been acted upon by the Bank.
[2.5] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal Nos.215 of 2007 to 217 of 2007, the Bank has preferred the present Special Civil Application Nos.5687 of 2010, 5649 of 2010 and 5650 of 2010, which are ordered to be heard along with Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009.
[2.6] It appears that the appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009 – original petitioner of Special Civil Application No.12272 of 2008 – Jumedar Mandal Shri Sayaji High School and Another being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 preferred Special Civil Application No.12272 of 2008 before the learned single Judge contending inter alia that as such the amount of Rs.62,22,000/ which was given credit in the account of the original plaintiffs of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 – original defendants of Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 was infact the amount belonging to the said Trust and further contending that the original plaintiffs of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 have obtained the judgment and award from the learned Board of Nominees by fraud. That the learned single Judge by impugned order dated 07.10.2008 has dismissed the said Special Civil Application No.12272 of 2008 on the ground that the said petitioners have alternative remedy available either by way of filing review application before the learned Board of Nominees pointing out the fraud or by way of Appeal before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 07.10.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12272 of 2008, the said petitioners have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009.
[2.7] That Civil Application No.7292 of 2009 has been preferred by the said applicants for an appropriate interim order to stay further execution, operation and implementation of the order passed by the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004.
[3.0] Shri B.S. Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009 – original petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12272 of 2008 and Shri Parthiv B. Shah, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the Bank. Shri Shirish Joshi, learned advocate has appeared with Shri N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendants of Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 and original plaintiffs of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004. Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009 and Shri S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3.
[3.1] As such the contesting parties would be the Bank as well as U.R. Dangarwala & Company through its proprietor Umeshbhai Dangarwala and Smt. Jayshriben Umeshbhai Dangarwala (who are represented through Shri Shirish Joshi, learned advocate).
[4.0] Shri Parthiv B. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Bank as well as Shri B.S. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009 have vehemently submitted that the learned Nominee has materially erred in decreeing the Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004. It is submitted that as such the original plaintiffs of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 have obtained the judgment and award by fraud. It is submitted that though the said Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 was at the stage of hearing of the application Exh.5 and even the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties made submissions on the interim injunction application Exh.5 only and though neither any issues were framed by the learned trial Court nor the parties led any evidence, the learned Board of Nominees has decreed the suit, which is not permissible.
[4.1] It is further submitted that though the learned Board of Nominees was aware of the fact that two lavad cases being Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 are pending before him and the decision in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 has a direct bearing on the aforesaid suits, still while hearing/deciding the application Exh.5, the learned Board of Nominees has first allowed the said Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 and thereafter on the basis of the said judgment and award passed in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, subsequently, the very learned Board of Nominees has partly allowed the Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 decreeing the said suits in part, however, further passing the order that in view of the judgment and award passed in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, directing the Bank to give credit of Rs.62,22,000/ in their account, the judgment and decree passed in Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 are satisfied. It is submitted that as such in view of the above, all the aforesaid three suits were required to be heard together to avoid any conflict decisions.
[4.2] It is further submitted that even while deciding and disposing of the Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, the learned Board of Nominees has relied upon the some evidence which were recorded in Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003, which is also not permissible.
[4.3] It is further submitted that even the learned Board of Nominees has allowed the Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 and passed the judgment and award on admission of the defendant – Bank and considering Order 12 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). It is submitted that as such neither there was any admission by the Bank in the written statement filed in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 nor there was any application submitted by the original plaintiffs of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 to pass the judgment and award on admission of the defendant. It is submitted that therefore, the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and against all procedure which is required to be followed by the learned Board of Nominees.
[4.4] It is further submitted that in view of the above, as such the learned Tribunal ought to have quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and awards passed in Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003, 152 of 2003 and 1154 of 2004 and ought to have remanded the same to the learned Board of Nominees to decide the aforesaid suits and even together.
[4.5] It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Bank as well as the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.12272 of 2008 (LPA No.1397 of 2009) that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the aforestated facts and more particularly the fact that the custodian at the relevant time with malafide intention and with oblique reason accepted the judgment and award passed in aforesaid lavad suits. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fraud committed by the original plaintiffs of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 and the illegality committed by the learned Board of Nominees while conducting/allowing Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004.
[4.6] It is further submitted by Shri B.S. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant of LPA No.1397 of 2009 that as such the amount of Rs.62,22,000/ which was kept by the Bank in the sundry account was infact belonging to the Trust and they did not belong to plaintiffs of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 and as such without even joining them/Trust, the original plaintiffs obtained the judgment and award by fraud and therefore, the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the aforesaid Special Civil Applications No.5687 of 2010, 5649 of 2010 and 5650 of 2010 as well as Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009.
[5.0] Shri Shirish Joshi, learned advocate with Shri N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant of Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 and the original plaintiffs of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 has tried to support the impugned judgment and awards passed by the learned Board of Nominees more particularly the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004. However, he is not in a position to satisfy the Court how while hearing and/or deciding the application Exh.5 in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, the learned Board of Nominees could have finally decided and disposed of and/or allowed the said suit. He is also not in a position to satisfy the Court how the learned Board of Nominees could have finally decided and disposed of the said Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 without even framing the issues and without permitting the parties to lead the evidence He is also not in a position to satisfy the Court how the learned Board of Nominees could have passed the judgment and award in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 as if there is an admission by the defendant Bank in the Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 more particularly when neither there was any admission by the Bank in the written statement in the Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 admitting the claim of the plaintiffs nor there was any application given by the plaintiffs to pass a decree on admission by the defendant Bank. However, has submitted that as the custodian of the Bank at the relevant time accepted the judgment and award passed in aforesaid lavad cases, no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the Appeals more particularly the amount of Rs.62,22,000/ has been given credit by the Bank in the account of the plaintiffs as per the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004.
Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss Special Civil Application Nos.5687 of 2010, 5649 of 2010 and 5650 of 2010 as well as the Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009.
[6.0] Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of contesting parties at length and considered the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 as well as Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 as well as the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal passed in Appeal Nos.215 of 2007 to 217 of 2007 and the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge dated 07.10.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No.12272 of 2008.
[6.1] Considering the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 which has been passed during the pendency of the Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003, it appears to the Court that as such the original plaintiffs of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 – defendants in Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 have played fraud / mischief and it prima facie appears to the Court that even the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara is a party to the same.
[6.2] As stated herein above, the Bank instituted Summary Lavad Case No.151 of 2003 against the original defendant – U.R. Dangarwala & Company for recovery of Rs.43,58,088.48 ps. as well as Summary Lavad Case No.152 of 2003 against Smt. Jayshriben Umeshbhai Dangarwala for recovery of Rs.10,07,935/. The aforesaid suits were at the stage of crossexamination. It is required to be noted that in the said suits the aforesaid two original defendants did not led any evidence oral and/or documentary. That during the pendency of the aforesaid suits and with an oblique motive and reason, the aforesaid two original defendants – U.R. Dangarwala & Company and Smt. Jayshriben Umeshbhai Dangarwala instituted Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 before the same learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara for a declaration and appropriate order to declare that the amount of Rs.62,22,000/ lying in the sundry account belong to them and the action of the Bank in not giving credit of the said amount in their account is illegal. From the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, it appears and it is not in dispute that at the relevant time the said suit was at the stage of hearing of application Exh.5 and the written submissions were submitted by the respective parties with respect to application Exh.5 only and even the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties made their submissions on application Exh.5 only and though neither the said suit was riped for final hearing nor the learned Board of Nominees framed any issues and though the parties did not led any evidence, the learned Board of Nominees by impugned judgment and award has allowed the said Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 illegally and also passed an order below Exh.5 decreeing the said suit and directing the Bank to give credit of Rs.62,22,000/ in the account of the original plaintiffs – defendants of aforesaid Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003. From the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, it appears that the learned Board of Nominees has passed the judgment and decree on admission of the defendant and relying upon Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC. However, it is required to be noted that neither there was any admission by the defendant Bank in the written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs nor there was any application submitted by the original plaintiffs to pass a decree on admission of the defendants admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. It appears that the Nominee has considered some evidence recorded in Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 as admission in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 which is not permissible at all. Therefore, as such the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 is absolutely illegal and without following any procedure as required to be followed by the learned Board of Nominees and the same cannot be sustained at all.
[6.3] It is also required to be noted at this stage that the learned Board of Nominees while deciding the Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 was conscious of the pendency of the Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 and still with an oblique reason he first disposed of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 finally though the same was at the stage of hearing of application Exh.5 only and thereafter, subsequently, relying upon the decision and judgment and award passed in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 has disposed of the Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 by partly allowing the said suits, however, by observing that in view of the judgment and award passed in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, the decree passed in the aforesaid suits stand satisfied. As such the learned Board of Nominees ought to have decided and disposed of all the three suits together when the same was with respect to the same account.
[6.4] Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not considered the aforesaid aspects at all and as such has not considered the legality and validity of the judgment and award passed in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 and has dismissed the Appeals against the judgment and award passed in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 solely on the ground that the said judgment and award have been accepted by the Bank (Custodian of the Bank) and the amount of Rs.62,22,000/ has been given credit in the account of the original plaintiffs of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 – original defendants of Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003. However, the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the amount of Bank is a public money and the Tribunal ought to have gone deep into the matter and ought to have tried to find out the truth and ought to have considered the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004.
[6.5] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, judgment and award dated 08.04.2005 passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 confirmed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad deserves to be quashed and set aside and consequently the judgment and award dated 15.04.2005 passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 which have been disposed of in view of the judgment and award passed in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 also deserve to be quashed and set aside and all the Lavad Cases are to be remanded to the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara to decide and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law and on merits and together. As the parties have led the evidence in Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003, on remand, the parties are not required to lead the evidence afresh and the learned Board of Nominees is required to decide and dispose of the said suits from the stage they were at the time when the judgment and award was passed by the learned Board of Nominees dated 08.04.2005. However, the parties may lead evidence in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 and as the issues were not framed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, the learned Board of Nominees is required to decide the said suit afresh in accordance with law and on merits and after framing the necessary issue and after giving the opportunity to parties to lead the evidence in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 only. It will be open for the appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009 – original petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12272 of 2008 to submit an appropriate application for joining as defendants in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 and in view of the rival claim, the learned Board of Nominees is directed to permit them to be joined as party defendants to the aforesaid suit.
[7.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Special Civil Application Nos.5687 of 2010, 5649 of 2010 and 5650 of 2010 are allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 08.04.2005 passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 as well as the judgment and award dated 15.04.2005 in Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 as confirmed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned common judgment and order dated 30.09.2009 in Appeal Nos.215 of 2007 to 217 of 2007 are hereby quashed and set aside and the aforesaid three lavad cases being Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 are remanded to the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara to decide and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law and on merits. However, it is observed that so far as Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 are concerned, as the parties had led the evidence, on remand, the learned Board of Nominees to proceed further with the aforesaid lavad cases from the stage they were at the time when the impugned judgment and awards were passed and no fresh evidence is to be lead. However, so far as Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 is concerned, the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara to decide and dispose of the said suit after framing necessary issues and permitting the parties to lead the evidence and after following due procedure as required under the law. It will be open for the appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009 – original petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12272 of 2008 to submit an appropriate application permitting them to be joined as party defendants in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 and in view of the rival claim, the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara is directed to allow the said application and permit them to be joined as party defendants in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004. The learned Board of Nominees to decide and dispose of all the aforesaid three suits together. The aforesaid entire exercise shall be completed by the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara and to decide and dispose of the aforesaid suits on remand at the earliest but not later than six months from the date of receipt of the present order. All concerned are directed to cooperate the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara in deciding and disposing of the aforesaid lavad suits at the earliest within the stipulated time stated hereinabove and if it is found by the learned Board of Nominees that any of the parties is not cooperating, it will open for the learned Board of Nominees to proceed further with the suit ex parte after passing a reasoned order. Rule is made absolute accordingly so far as aforesaid Special Civil Application Nos.5687 of 2010, 5649 of 2010 and 5650 of 2010 are concerned.
[7.1] In view of the order passed in Special Civil Application Nos.5687 of 2010, 5649 of 2010 and 5650 of 2010 and quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara in Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004, no further order is required to be passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009 with Civil Application No.7292 of 2009 and they are, accordingly, ordered to be disposed of, however, with a liberty in favour of the appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2009 as stated hereinabove.
[7.2] In the facts and circumstances of the case, all the aforesaid three Special Civil Applications are allowed with exemplary cost which is quantified at Rs.25,000/ each, which the original plaintiffs of Lavad Case No.1154 of 2004 and original defendants of Summary Lavad Case Nos.151 of 2003 and 152 of 2003 (in all Rs.75,000/) are directed to deposit with the Registry of this Court within a period of two months from today and on such deposit, the Registry is directed to transmit Rs.50,000/ to Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Committee and Rs.25,000/ to Gujarat State Legal Services Authority.
Sd/ (M.R.SHAH, J.) Ajay Sd/ (S.H.VORA, J.)