UMRAO Vs. BABURAO MADHAORAO TIDKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against the order dated 16 6 1994 passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court, Nagpur, on the application filed Under Section 95 (4) of the M. C. S. Act, 1960, (referred) as "act" hereinafter for brevity) in dispute No. 398/1994, under the order impugned the said application is allowed and opponents 1 and 2 are restrained from holding the meeting of no confidence motion against the disputant scheduled to be held on 18. 6. 1994 pursuan to notice dated 8. 6. 1994, pending final disposal of the dispute. Respondent No 1 is the disputant and respondent nos 2 to 12 are opponents in the said dispute.

(2.) TO comprehend, brief facts of the dispute need to be narrated and they are as under : Respondent No. 1 is one of the members of the District Loan committee of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Agriculture and rural Development Bank Ltd. , Bombay, District Branch Nagpur, which is respondent No. 4 (referred as "bank" hereinafter) and is Chairman of District Loan Committee of the said Bank. The appellant and the respondent Nos. 7 to 11 are the elected members of the District Loan Committee of the Bank, while respondent No 6 and respondent No. 12 are the nominated members. The said loan committee is constituted Under Section 112 of the Act. Section 73id of the Act provides for motion of no confidence against the officers of the society and Rule-57a of the M. C. S. Rules, 1961, (referred as "rules" hereinafter for brevity), lays down the procedure of the meeting in which the motion of no confidence against the officers of the society is to considered. The respondent No. 1 is challenging the legality of the notice dated 8. 6. 1994 issued by the respondent No. 2 and the validity of the meeting proposed to be held on 18. 6 1994 on the motion of no confidence against him. According to him, the respondent No. 2 holds no authority to issue such a notice so the meeting for no confidence cannot be legally summoned and that the proposed meeting scheduled on 18 6. 1994 is illegal since the respondent No 2 has not complied the provisions of Rule-57a (2) (b) and failed to issue notice to the respondent No. 1 depriving him of his right of voting at the meeting and to attend the meeting inspite of the fact that the proposed no confidence motion is against the respondent No. 1 himself, being so deprived he has a right to approach the court. There is no reason why respondent No. 2 should have issued a notice when competent authority under law is District Deputy registrar, C. S Rendering the issuance of notice illegal the appointment of District Deputy Registrar, C. S, is also illegal since he being a person to participate in the meeting as a member of Load Committee as laid down Under Section 112aof the act, and would be entitled to sit and vote in the said meeting. Section-73id of the Act creates bar to the voting at the meeting by the presiding Officer and in view of the fact that District Deputy registrar, C. S. , who is entitled to sit and vote in the said meeting the respondent No 1 apprehends that he may loose one vote that may come in his favour and therefore issuance of notice by respondent No 2 appointing District Deputy Registrar, C. S. , as a Presiding Officer for the meeting proposed to be held on 18. 6. 1994 and the meeting of no confidence against the respondent no. 1, also are illegal It is reliably learnt that there is absolutely no requision with the respondent No. 2 against Vijay Amrutrao katkar Chairman of District Loan Committee, Wardha nor he has any connection with the District Loan Committee, Nagpur. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 ought to have served the notice dated 8. 6. 1994 pertaining to the meeting of no confidence on the disputant and not on V. A. Katkar, Wardha since no confidence motion is proposed against him i. e. Respondent 1 only, by whatever legal process. But it is not so served even till the date of filing the dispute though required under law and rules. Moreover, the said notice has not been sent to all the members entitled to sit and vote in the proposed meeting dated 18. 6. 1994. Therefore, the said meeting is in contravention of legal provisions The notice issued on 8. 6 1994 and the process of calling the meeting as per the said notice as also the meeting called thereunder on 18. 6 1994 in pursance of that notice deserve to be declared void, ab initio and legal. The respondent No. 1 under an application Under Section 95 (4) of the Act filed along with the dispute has prayed for Ad-interim-interlocutory order staying the effect of the notice dated 8. 6. 1994 and restraining the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from convening the meeting of no confidence motion against farm, alternatively in case any resolution on no confidence motion is passed the effect of the said resolution be stayed pending the decision of the dispute.

(3.) THE Ld Judge having heard both the sides on the interim application has passed the order on 16. 6. 1994 allowing the application and restraining the respondents 2 and 3 as prayed. It is this order which is challenge in the instant appeal.