SUDHIR KAVDIA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Advocate Shri Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner is said to be a qualified Chartered Accountant with 28 years of experience. He is a shareholder of the respondent - Bank which is a nationalized bank. The petitioner had sought to contest the election as a shareholder - Director of the respondent - Bank in pursuance of a notice dated 26.05.2015 issued by the respondent to its shareholders of conducting an Annual General Meeting of shareholders of the Bank to be held on 26.06.2015 at Manipal. One of the items of the Agenda, Item No. 4, was to elect a Director from amongst the shareholders of the Bank other than Central Government in respect of whom valid nominations as prescribed have been received, in terms of Section 9(3)(i) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.

(3.) THE respondent - Bank is also said to have informed the National Stock Exchange of India Limited that one of the applicants was found not fit and proper and the petitioner had not provided adequate information regarding his experience in different sectors as enumerated in the application. Therefore, the election of one shareholder - Director stood cancelled. The petitioner on receipt of the letter dated 18.06.2015, had made a detailed representation to the Bank on 18.06.2015 explaining the entire sequence of events and that there was no failure or lapse on his part and by virtue of his qualification as a Chartered Accountant, documentary evidence was produced to indicate that he possessed the requisite specialized knowledge in the field of finance, economics and banking and it was also brought to the knowledge of the Bank that the Reserve Bank of India, vide its notifications issued from time to time has laid down specific 'fit and proper' criteria which is to be fulfilled by persons seeking to be elected as Directors on the Boards of the Nationalised Banks under the provisions of Section 9(3A) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 which are uniformly applicable to all nationalized banks. Therefore, it was emphasized that the petitioner's candidature had already been accepted by three other nationalized banks where applications had been made in the very same format, without any demur. Therefore, the rejection of the application by the respondent was obviously motivated by ill -designs. Therefore, the petitioner contended and asserted that his candidature be considered by the respondent -Bank.