Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10875 (RAJ)

THE DAUSA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED v. GYAN CHAND GUPTA SON OF SHRI PYARE LAL GUPTA

SAW/719/2026 · 2026-07-23

Bhuwan Goyal, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:28335-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 719/2026 CNR: RJHC020534782026 | URN: SAW / 1531U / 2026 The Dausa Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dausa, Through Its Managing Director. ----Appellant Versus 1. Gyan Chand Gupta Son Of Shri Pyare Lal Gupta, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Bhagwati Colony, Bayana, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. 2. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar with Mr. Nagendra Sharma Mr. Sanjay Kapoor (through VC) HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 23/07/2026 1. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.02.2026, which appears to be a consent order, as even now learned counsel for the appellant agrees that the issue has been decided in the case of Amar Singh vs. The Jalore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Through Managing Director and Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6996/2014 and squarely covers the facts of the present case too. However, his contention is that the benefit which was awarded in the case of Amar Singh (supra) to the concerned writ petitioners has already been awarded to the writ petitioner in the present case. [2026:RJ-JP:28335-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-719/2026] 2. We do not find any such averments being made by the appellants before the Learned Single Judge and on the other hand, we do not find that the representation made by the writ petitioner was rejected by the appellants. 3. It is also informed by the counsel appearing as caveator that one of the writ petitioner has already been granted the benefit. We expect that the same benefit shall be extended to the other writ petitioners. 4. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference and the appeal is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the appellant with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Riya/Gaurav/2