Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Sachin Singh Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh 21 ... on 19 March, 2020 cites

State Of M.P.& Ors vs Sanjay Nagayach & Ors on 16 May, 2013

6. Shri Prafull N. Bharat, the learned counsel for the Appellants submits that there is no doubt that the 4th Respondent-Bank comes within the purview of the 2nd proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act of 1960 and as such, before passing any order of supersession, previous consultation with the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'RBI') was essential. In the instant case, in the earlier round of proceedings (pursuant to earlier show-cause notice dated 10.07.2019), the 4th Respondent-Bank had approached the 3rd Respondent-RBI in terms of the 2nd proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act of 1960. After considering the facts and figures, the RBI, vide Annexure P/5 dated 27.01.2020 (obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005) had made it explicitly clear that the acts and deeds being prior to the period in question, supersession, was not necessary at that stage. This being the position, according to the learned counsel for the Appellants, the Board ought to have been restored after lifting the suspension, as no supersession was possible by virtue of the mandate of the 3rd proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act of 1960 and also the 2nd and 3rd proviso to sub-section (10) of Section 53 of the Act of 1960. The learned counsel points out that 'supersession' can only for 'one year' in the case of Co-operative Bank and the 'suspension' shall be confined to six months. Since no 7 order has been passed by the 2nd Respondent super ceding the Board of Directors and further since the RBI, on consultation, had made clear that no supersession was necessary, no further proceedings ought to have been pursued in connection with the supersession and the Board of Directors ought to have been reinstated. Since the maximum period of suspension is only six months, the said period is over and Annexure P/1 passed suspending the Board of Directors for a further period of six months with reference to original cause of action (in relation to the first suspension ordered on 03.08.2019) is not correct or sustainable. Reliance is sought to be placed on State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Sanjay Nagayach and Others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 25, particularly w.r.t. paragraph-22, explaining the scope of consultation with the RBI as envisaged in Section 53(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1960, which is stated as pari-materia with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 251 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Ajay Gupta vs Khem Singh Barmate 69 Crmp/65/2015 Lala ... on 11 April, 2019

14. Obviously, the final prayer sought for in the writ petition is to set aside the Annexure P/1 order dated 03.02.2020, whereas the interim relief prayed for is to stay Annexure P/1. This being the position, by virtue of the clear mandate of proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006 and the scope of the provision as explained by the Full Bench of this Court in Ajay Gupta (supra), we hold that the instant appeal is not maintainable under any circumstance. It is dismissed accordingly.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1