Mr Ramchandra Mule, director, the Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd and others have ...
PANAJI: Mr Ramchandra Mule, director, the Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd and others have filed a petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the no-confidence motion passed against him, on Thursday.
The petition states that when the Bye Laws provide for 16 elected directors, simple majority would require at least 9 directors supporting the motion. In the facts of the present case, only 8 directors have supported the motion of no-confidence and still it is claimed that the no-confidence motion had been passed with majority. In fact, if 8 directors have supported the no-confidence motion, it should have been deemed to have been rejected for want of simple majority as contemplated under Bye Law 35(iii).
The petition also states that without any specific instructions from the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Goa on his own issued a notice dated June 13, 2012 and called for the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank on June 20, 2012 to decide the no-confidence motion moved against Mr Ramchandra Mule, chairman of the Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd. The State Registrar issued the said notice without any powers and authority being vested in him for the said
purpose. They had also decided not to attend the board meeting called by the State Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his notice dated June 13, 2012.
Subsequent to the judgment passed by High Court, the petitioners took a decision to file a SLP before the Supreme Court of India against the judgment and order dated June 20, 2012 passed by High Court. The Supreme Court has granted interim stay to the High Court order.
It may be noted that the petition filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa by Mr Ramchandra Mule and others, seeking to set aside the notice dated June 13 calling for the board meeting to take up no-confidence motion against Mr Mule, was dismissed.
The petition submitted that the state registrar of co-operative societies does not have any power to call for meeting of board of directors on his own to discuss the no-confidence motion. The representation by the directors for the special meeting was addressed by the parties to the central registrar of the co-operative societies. The central registrar is aware that the process of holding elections has already been initiated by the bank. The central registrar is yet to take any decision on the representation dated June 6. Without waiting for any instructions from the central registrar of co-operative societies, the state registrar issued the notice dated June 13, calling for the board meeting with the single agenda of discussion on no-confidence motion against the chairman.