ANTONY Vs. IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions which need my answer for deciding this case, in the light of the arguments, are:

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: the petitioner is a member of the first respondent cooperative bank. As per the bye laws (Ext. P2) of the bank, its authorised share capital is Rs. One crore, made up of A,B and C classes. A Class shares consist of Rs. 100/- each and the total number of shares available is 75,000/-, making the total share value as Rs.75,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, the bank had paid up the entire shares under A Class as on 21.3.1994 and thereafter, it cannot legally admit new members without increasing the share capital by making an amendment of the bye laws of the bank to that effect. Without amending the bye laws of the bank and increasing the share capital, the board of directors of the first respondent bank enrolled more than 3,000 persons as A Class members. Such inclusion of members, it is contended, is illegal and, therefore, such persons cannot have the privilege of other members who were admitted within its authorised share capital. The bank published Ext. P1 notification dated 12.10.1995 informing the members that a special general body meeting would be convened on 29.10.1995 to get Bye law 14 of Ext. P2 amended enhancing the share capital from Rs.75,000/- to Rs. Two Crores. By Ext. P1, all members admitted before and after 21.3.1994 were invited to participate and vote at the general body meeting. According to the petitioner, allowing those persons who were enrolled after 21.3.1994 to participate in the general body meeting and to the cast their votes for the proposed amendment to the bye laws with retrospective effect so as to regularise their illegal admission after the share capital had been paid up is illegal. Stating these facts, the petitioner filed Ext. P3 representation before the second respondent and requested him not to allow the bank to convene the special general body meeting with those persons who were enrolled as members after 21.3.1994. Though subsequently Ext. P4 was also sent, the second respondent did not take any action in the matter. Therefore, he moved this Court by filing the original petition to restrain the first respondent from convening the general body meeting on 29.10.1995 and to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Exts. P3 and P4 representations and till such time, not to allow the bank to proceed with the general body meeting.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader on behalf of the second respondent, this court, as per the order dated 27.10.1995, prevented the first respondent from convening the special general body meeting on 29.10.1995. On notice from this Court, the respondents entered appearance and counter affidavits were filed by respondents 1 and 3.