Skip to content


B. Suryanarayana and ors. Vs. the Kolluru Parvathi Co-op Bank Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 873 of 1982 and WAMP No. 560 of 1985 and Oral SCLP
Judge
Reported inAIR1986AP244
ActsAndhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 - Sections 64 and 115-B; Constitution of India - Article 226
AppellantB. Suryanarayana and ors.
RespondentThe Kolluru Parvathi Co-op Bank Ltd. and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK.R.K. Varaprasad, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateC. Poornaiah, Adv.
Excerpt:
trust and societies - winding up - sections 64 and 115-b of andhra pradesh co-operative societies act, 1964 and article 226 of constitution of india - appellants were depositors of respondent bank and filed appeal against liquidation of respondent bank - appellant contended that liquidation proceedings against respondent bank is illegal and void as section 64 not applicable to co-operative bank and same is banking company within the purview of banking regulation act - court observed that a society after partaking the character of bank does not ceases to be a co-operative society - such co-operative banks can be wound up under section 64 - appeal accordingly dismissed. - - , both from members as well as non-members. it is further averred that the reserve bank has actually drawn up a.....a. seetharam reddy, j.1. writ of mendamus sought for by the writ petitioners who are the appellants herein declaring that liquidation proceedings against kollur parvathi co-operative bank limited are illegal and void by holding that provisions of s. 64, andhra pradesh co-operative societies act, 1964, are not applicable to a co-operative bank as the same is a banking company within the purview of the banking regulation act, 1949 and that the high court alone has jurisdiction, or in the alternative direct the reserve bank of india to take steps under sub-cl. (iii) of s. 115-b of the andhra pradesh co-operative societies act and by declaring that the deputy registrar, co-operative societies has no jurisdiction to order liquidation of the said bank, was refused to be issued by the learned.....
Judgment:

A. Seetharam Reddy, J.

1. Writ of Mendamus sought for by the writ petitioners who are the appellants herein declaring that liquidation proceedings against Kollur Parvathi Co-operative Bank Limited are illegal and void by holding that provisions of S. 64, Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, are not applicable to a Co-operative Bank as the same is a Banking Company within the purview of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and that the High Court alone has jurisdiction, or in the alternative direct the Reserve Bank of India to take steps under sub-cl. (iii) of S. 115-B of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act and by declaring that the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to order liquidation of the said Bank, was refused to be issued by the learned single Judge and so they have come in appeal herein.

2. The format of the case in brief is. This petitioners are the members-cum-depositors of Kollur Parvathi Co-operative Bank Limited ('Bank' for short). This Bank is an Urban Co-operative Bank established in the year 1915 at Kollur, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. As on 31-7-1976 there were 1001 members in the said Bank with a paid up share capital of Rs. 4,22,537/-. The Bank accepts current, savings, fixed deposits, etc., both from members as well as non-members. The deposits were to the tune of Rs. 31,70,158/-. The loan outstanding as on the same date is Rs. 28,25,000/-. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, second respondent herein ordered in enquiry under S. 51 of the Act and thereafter enquiry report was submitted and in consequence thereof surcharge proceedings under S. 60 of the Act were initiated. It was eventually found that there was defalcation of Rs. 6,74,433-85 ps. Consequently a show cause notice was issued to the Bank as to why it should not be wound up. Thereupon respondent 1 called for a General Body meeting of the members on 25-3-1980 and the General Body, decided against the wounding up and communicated the same to respondent 2. However, respondent 2 on 16-4-1980 ordered winding up and appointed Sub-Registrar as liquidator. On 14-8-1976 the then President of the first respondent Bank addressed a letter to the Reserve Bank of India, fourth respondent herein, that he suspects misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 3,44,200/- due to wilful acts and omissions of the employees with a request that the fourth respondent may appoint a senior officer to rectify the matter. The fourth respondent as alleged by the petitioner did not take any action in this regard as it was reported in the audit report that the first respondent Bank is an 'A' class Bank. The above was countered by the second respondent stating that the General Body of the first respondent Bank passed a resolution objecting to the proposed liquidation and the resolution was passed at a meeting attended by only forty members as against nine hundred and ninty three members eligible to participate. But, however, after giving due consideration the second respondent decided that it should be would up in the interest of the bulk members of the Bank. The forty members who attended the General Body meeting are heavily indebted to the Bank. Though the Bank was certified as 'A' class Bank, there was a sudden fall in its resources with the result it was considered as 'B' Class in 1975-76 and as 'C' Class for the subsequent period. So, in the exercise of the statutory powers an enquiry was conducted into the complaints and a decision was taken for winding up the Bank. It is further averred that the Reserve Bank has actually drawn up a programme of rehabilitation and appointed the Deputy Registrar to function as a Special Officer of the Bank on 16-7-1979. But in spite of the best efforts of the Special Officer, the programme was not successful as the borrowers failed to repay the loans. Due to the failure of the Bank to pay its day to day liabilities some of the depositors approached the Civil Courts for repayment and decrees were also passed against the Bank and so, the winding up was inevitable and so as a last resort the same was ordered.

3. The Reserve Bank too stated in the counter-affidavit that under the powers conferred under S. 25, Banking Regulation Act, the Reserve Bank initiated inspection into the affairs of the Bank and found that there was considerable deterioration in the financial position of the Bank due to misappropriation of funds as a result assets of the Bank eroded to the extent of 17.18 lakhs which adversely affected the deposits and also the share capital assets. The instructions for improvement of the Bank were not given effect to by the Bank and since a serious situation developed the Registrar of Societies was informed that a programme of rehabilitation may be drawn up. But since complaints were received about non-payment of deposits and since they also instituted legal proceedings, the Zonal Officer of the Reserve Bank indicated that the financial position has further deteriorated and after discussion by the senior officials of the Bank with the officials of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, it was found that there was no possibility of reviving the Bank. Thereupon the Reserve Bank on 4-2-1980 requested the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to initiate action for the liquidation of the Bank, and so after observing the due formalities of show-cause notice and so forth winding up orders were issued.

The contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants by the learned counsel are :

(1) The provisions enacted in the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies as that of the fist respondent Bank are ultra vires in view of the Banking regulations.

(2) Even assuming that the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act are applicable to the Bank and winding up proceedings must nevertheless be issued under Banking Regulation Act.

(3) That the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act are to be followed independently or consequentially.

4. The first contention directed against the legislative competence in enacting S. 64, Co-operative Societies Act, making it applicable to the Co-operative Banks being ultra vires as the 'Banking' comes under item 45 of the Union list in the 7th Schedule to the Constitution and, therefore, the State Legislature is not competent to pass the same purporting to be under item 32 of the State List of the 7th schedule, was not canvassed at the stage of the writ petition and so the same can be rejected without being subject to the adjudication on its merits. Even on merits, however, the contention has to be rejected being devoid of merit and substance. It is not in dispute that the impugned winding up order has been issued under S. 64 (2) (c) of the Act by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. It is also not in dispute that 'Banking' is item 45 of the Union list to the 7th Schedule. So also item 32 of the State list deals with incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations other than those specified in List I, and universities, union-corporated trading literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; co-operative Societies.

The Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with this aspect in a case reported in Virendra Pal Singh, v. The Dist. Asst. Registrar, Etah, 1980 UJ (SC) 673, in Civil Appeal No. 288 of 1978 dated 2-5-1980. Chinnappa Reddy, J., speaking for the Court held :

'It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners in some of the cases that the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, in so far it was sought to be made applicable to Co-operative Bank was beyond the competence of the State Legislature. The argument was that while the subject 'Co-operative Societies' was included in entry 32 of List II, 'Banking' was a distinct entry by itself in List 1 on the 7th Schedule (entry 45) and, therefore, the State Legislature was incompetent to legislature in regard to Banking by 'Co-operative Societies'. There is no substance whatever in this submission. Entry 43 of List I is 'Incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations, including banking, insurance and financial corporations but not including Co-operative Societies, Entry 44 is 'Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations whether trading or not, with objects not confined to one State, but not including universities'. Entry 45 is 'Banking'. Entry 32 of List II is 'Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, other then those specified in List I, and universities, unincorporated trading literary scientific, religious and other societies and associations, Co-operative Societies.'

Further held :

'Wo do not think it necessary to refer to the abundance of authority on the question as to how to determine whether a legislation falls under an entry in one list or another entry in one list or another entry in another list. Long ago in Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna, (AIR 1947 PC 60) the Privy Council was confronted with the question whether the Bengal Money Lenders act fell within Entry 27 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 which was 'money lending', in respect of which the Provincial Legislature was competent to legislate, or whether it fell within Entries 28 and 38 in the List II which were 'Promissory Notes' in and 'banking' which were within the competence of the Central Legislature. The argument was that the Bengal Money Lenders Act was beyond the competence of the Provincial Legislature in so far as it dealt with promissory notes and the business of banking. The Privy Council upheld that vires of the whole of the Act because it dealt in pith and substance with money lending. They observed :

'Subjects must still overlap, and where they do the question must be asked what in pith and substance is the effect of the enactment of which complaint is made, and in what lists is its true nature and character to be found. If these questions could not be asked, such beneficent legislation would be stifled at birth, and many of the subjects entrusted to provincial legislation could never effectively be death with.'

Examining the provisions of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act in the light of the observations of the Privy Council we do not have the slightest doubt that in pith and substance the Act deals with Co-operative Societies. 'That it trenches upon banking incidentally does not take it beyond the competence of the State Legislature. It is obvious that for the proper financing and effective functioning of Co-operative Societies there must also be Co-operative Societies which do banking businesses such Co-operative Societies do not cease to be Co-operative Societies, when otherwise they are registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and are subject to the duties, liabilities and control of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. We do not think that the question deserves, any more consideration and we, therefore, hold that the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act was within the competence of the State Legislature. This was also the view taken in Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nagpur v. Divl., Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur, : AIR1971Bom365 and Sant Sandhu Singh v. State of Punjab, .'

Same is the view expressed by the High Court of Bombay in a case reported in Central Co-operative Bank Nagpur v. Divisional Joint Registrar, : AIR1971Bom365 , wherein it is held :

'There is no conflict between Entry 45 of List I and Entry 32 of List II. The State Legislature can pass law for controlling the management of the Banking Co-operative Society. Even if such law is connected with banking business matters, it would not necessarily encroach upon the power of Central Legislature to control the conduct of banking business of a Co-operative Societies.'

5. Likewise the Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken similar view in a case reported in Sadhu Singh v. State .

6. Examined in the light of the above we have no hesitation whatsoever to hold that in pith and substance the Act deals with 'Co-operative Societies.' Though it might trench upon Banking incidentally, yet it does not take it beyond the competence of the State Legislature. A Co-operative Bank does not cease to be a society. It retains essentially the character of Co-operative Society. In fact it is one of the activities of the Co-operative Society. A Co-operative Society may engage itself in the matter of supplying to its members the various implements of agricultural, industrial or the commodities like fertilizer, seeds and so on. It may also lend the amount in cash to its members or receive the cash by way of deposits. In that it might partake the character of a bank. But nevertheless it does not cease to be a co-operative society which is its essential character, so, in such cases it is the principle of pith and substance that must guide in adjudicating the legislative competence. The contention of the appellants, therefore, is rejected being without any foundation.

6A. The second contention in the main that has been pressed into service is that S. 56 read with S. 45-A coupled with S. 38 Banking Regulation Act, makes abundantly clear that only the Banking Regulation act is applicable in the matter of winding up of the CO-operative Bank and not the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. The said provisions may now be adverted to :

Section 56, Banking Regulation Act, reads :

'The provisions of this Act, as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to, co-operative societies as they apply to, or in relation to, banking companies subject to the following modifications, namely :-

(a) through this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

(b) references to a 'banking company' or 'the company' or 'such company' shall be construed as references to a co-operative bank,

(zb) part IIA, Pt. III, except sub-secs, (1), (2) and (3) of S. 45 and Pt. IIIA except S. 45-W shall be omitted.'

Section 45 reads :

'The provisions of this part and the rules made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or the Code or Criminal Procedure, 1895 (5 of 1898) or any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law but the provisions of any such law or instrument in so far as the same are not varied by, or inconsistent with, the provisions of this Part or rules made thereunder shall apply to all proceedings under this part.'

Section 38(1) reads :

'Notwithstanding anything contained in s. 391, S. 392, S. 433 and S. 583 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), but without prejudice to its power under sub-sec (1) of S. 37 of the Act, the High Court shall order the winding up of a banking company -

(a) if the banking company is unable to pay its debts; or

(b) if an application for its winding up has been made by the Reserve Bank under S. 37 of this Act.'

Provision (zb) of S. 56 which is extracted above is quite clear that Part III is excluded from the application of the provisions enacted in S. 56 to a Co-operative Bank.

Part III of the Banking Regulation Act is titled 'suspension of business and winding up of banking companies' : S. 38 which deals with winding up of Banking Companies fall under Part III. In other words, Co-operative Bank is excluded from being would up under the Banking Regulation Act and if that be so it is needless to advert to the provisions of S. 45-A of the Banking Regulation and construe with reference to non obstante clause therein, because any explicit provision under (zb) of S. 56 itself the applicability of the provisions dealing with winding up proceedings of a Co-operative Bank is excluded. Hence there is no merit in the contention and, therefore, the same is rejected.

7. The final contention in this behalf is that the first respondent-bank being 'eligible Co-operative Bank' which falls under Chapter XIII-A of the Act, has to be wound up with the sanction of the Reserve Bank, secondly since S. 64 of the Act cannot be attracted and inasmuch as there is no provision as to who should wind up the Bank, the Registrar is not competent to wind up the Co-operative Bank. Relevant provisions may now be set out :

section 115-A :

(a) the said Act' means the Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, 1961;

(b) eligible 'Co-operative Bank' means a Co-operative Bank as defined in Cl. (Gg) of S. 2 of the said Act;

(c) 'Corporation' means the Deposit Insurance Corporation established under S. 3 of the said Act;

(d) 'Reserve Bank' means the Reserve Bank of India constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934;

(e) all other expression used in this Chapter but not defined shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the said Act.

Section 115-B :

Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the following possession shall apply to an eligible co-operative bank, namely :-

(i) an order for the winding up, or an order sanctioning a scheme of compromise or arrangement or of amalgamation or reconstruction, of the bank may be made under the provisions of this Act only with the previous sanction in writing of the Reserve Bank;

(ii) an order of the writing up of the bank shall be made under the provisions of this Act, if so required by the Reserve Bank in the circumstances referred in S. 13-D of the said Act;

section 13-D; Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, 1961 :

(1) The circumstances referred to in sub-cl. (Ii) of Cl. (Gg) of S. 2 (being circumstances in which the Reserve Bank may require the winding up of a co-operative bank) are the following namely :-

(a) to (e) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(f) that in the option of the Reserve Bank -

(i) a compromise or arrangement sanctioned by a competent authority in respect of the co-operative bank cannot be worked satisfactorily with or without modifications or

(ii) the continuance of the co-operative bank is prejudicial to the interests of its depositors.

Section 2 (gg) : 'eligible Co-operative Bank' means a Co-operative Bank the law for the time being governing which provides that -

(i) an order for the winding up, or an order sanctioning a scheme of compromise or arrangement or of amalgamation or reconstruction, of the bank may be made only with the previous sanction in writing of the Reserve Bank;

(ii) an order for the winding up of the bank shall be made if so required by the Reserve Bank in circumstances referred to in S. 13-D;

Section 64 (2), A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 :

The Registrar may, of his own motion and after giving the society an opportunity of making its representation, if any, make an order directing the winding up of a society -

(a) where it is a condition of the registration of the society that the society shall consist of at least ten members and the membership falls short of that number; or

(b) where the society has not commenced working within the prescribed period or has ceased to work; or

(c) where in the opinion of the Registrar the society is conducting its affairs in a manner detrimental to the interests of its members of the promotion of the object for which it has been registered.

8. Deposit Insurance Corporation got itself impleaded herein as respondent 5. It is not in dispute that the first respondent-bank is eligible Co-operative Bank within the meaning of S. 115-A of the Act. Chapter XIIIA was inserted by the A. P. Act. No. 10 of 1970 in the Act. The object of this amendment is that a Bank which comes under eligible co-operative bank, in case of it is being wound up, the liabilities, if any, would be met by the Deposit Insurance Corporation with which the said Bank is insured. Indubitably the impugned winding up proceedings have been ordered in the exercise of powers conferred under S. 115-B (ii) having a reference of S. 13D, Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.

9. Paras 4 to 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Reserve Bank of India makes it manifest that while inspecting the state of affairs of the Bank with effect from 30th June, 1977 onwards there was a revelation of the misappropriation of funds aggregating to Rs. 6.74 lakhs. Consequently there was erosion in the assets to the extent of Rs. 17.18 lakhs. This erosion also affected the deposits to the extent of 3.65 lakhs. Resultantly the Bank was advised to rectify the defects which was in vain. A communication was also sent to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in this behalf. Thereafter a team comprising the Deputy Chief Officer, Regional Officer of the Reserve Bank and Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies visited the Bank and in consultation with the members drew up a concrete programme of action aiming to rehabilitate. Since in the meanwhile the Reserve Bank received complaints from the depositors and due to non-payment of their deposits legal proceedings were also initiated and so the Zonal Joint Officer visited the Bank was witnessed further deterioration in the financial position of the Bank which was communicated on 4-1-1980 to the Reserve Bank and eventually a decision was taken after discussing with the Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and by deciding that there was no scope of reviving the Bank eventually requested the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to initiate action to take the Bank into liquidation and so after giving a show cause notice the Registrar in the exercise of his powers under S. 64 (2) (c) of the Act issued order of liquidation. This undeniable procedure adopted in quite in consonance with the provisions of S. 115-B and S. 64 of the Act. S. 13-D, Deposit Insurance Corporation Act empowers winding of Co-operative Bank in situation where any arrangement for rehabilitation cannot be worked out or the continuance of the Co-operative Bank is prejudicial to the interests of the depositors. Therefore, the Reserve Bank with in the sweep of its powers having tried to oxygenise and after looking into the futility of the same adopted eventually the inevitable action of winding up of the Bank. This course was indeed adopted, after careful analysis that any further continuation of the Bank would be prejudicial to the interests of its depositors an many of them had already approached the Court of Law for repayment of their deposits coupled with the fact that the financial position of the Bank was in a terrible mess. Therefore, the course adopted in this behalf is proper and legal.

10. Now coming to the question as to whether there was a sanction within the meaning of S. 115-B (i) of the Act, it is quite obvious from the provision of S. 115-B (i) that the winding up of the Bank may be made under the provisions of this Act only 'with the previous sanction in writing' of the Reserve Bank.

11. The various communications between the Reserve Bank of India and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies right from 30th June, 1977 culminating in D. O., letter dt. 4-2-1980 addressing the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to initiate action for liquidating the Bank, would spell out, sanction within the meaning of S. 115-B (i) of the Act. There is no any magic in the word of sanction which means a direction or permission to do a particular thing. The argument that the Reserve Bank has merely requested and not sanctioned any authority to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and, therefore, the same cannot be reckoned as the essential ingredient of sanction within the meaning of S. 115-B (i) it too fanciful to be appreciated. In out undoubted view, therefore, the communication to the Registrar by the Reserve Bank is nothing, but a sanction for winding up the Bank and, therefore, adequately complies with the provisions of S. 115-B (i) of the Act.

12. The next argument is that there is no provision in Chapter XII-A enabling the Registrar to exercise the power of winding up the Bank. This again is a futile attempt. In the face of the words employed in S. 115-B (i) wherein it says that the winding up of the Bank may be made under the provisions of this Act' meaning thereby clearly that the winding up of the proceedings of any Bank will have to be done as laid down in any of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the provision being S. 64 of the Act, under which it is the Registrar that has been empowered to wind up the Bank the contention cannot sustain. To read the provisions, as the learned counsel wanted us to do, would be rendering the provisions not only ineffective and otiose, but also nugatory and perhaps grotesque. So, it is rejected.

13. Yet another contention, the Reserve Bank having at first decided to rehabilitate, cannot how think of winding up of the Bank under S. 115-B (i) of the Act and so the powers have not been properly exercised as the Bank could have been revived by improving its position and, therefore, the final decision of liquidation was improper. We apprehend this contention is ill-founded. The saga of events as brought out in detail in the counter-affidavit along with the annexures of the communications ensued between the Reserve Bank on one hand and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on the other would reveal the sad and sickening state of affairs of the Bank. There was huge misappropriation of funds. Even so, the Reserve Bank tried its best at first to adopt a kind of arrangement for rehabilitation which could not fructify for the credible and cogent reasons which have already been adverted to and, therefore, the ultimate decision for the winding up. This Court will be highly chary to enter into area or scrutinising the decision of Reserve Bank as an appellate authority. The Reserve Bank is a potential body with its necessary expertise in the matter of banking and its affairs to take a proper decision and it is not for this Court to interdict or interfere, unless the decision is mala fide vide the following :

14. In a decision reported in Joseph Kuruvilla Vellukunnel v. Reserve Bank of India, : AIR1962SC1371 , the Supreme held :

'These observations lay down clearly that there may be occasions and situations in which the legislature may, with reason, think that the determination of an issue may be left to an expert executive like the Reserve Bank rather than to Courts without incurring the penalty of having the law declared void. The law thus made is justified on the ground of expediency arising from the respective opportunities for action. Of course, the exclusion of Courts is not lightly to be inferred nor lightly to be conceded. The reasonableness of such a law in the total circumstances will, if challenged, have to be made out to the ultimate satisfaction of this Court and it is only when this Court considers that it is reasonable in the individual circumstances that the law will be upheld.

Further held :

'In the present case, in view of the history of the establishment of the Reserve Bank as a central bank for India, its position as a 'Bankers' bank, its control over banking companies and banking in India, its position as the issuing bank, its power to license banking companies and cancel their licences and the numerous other powers, it is unanswerable that between the Court and the Reserve Bank, the momentous decision to wind up a tottering or unsafe banking company in the interest of the depositors, may reasonably be left to the Reserve Bank. No doubt, the Court can also, given the time, perform this task. But the decision has to be taken without delay, and the Reserve Bank already knows intimately the affairs of baking companies and has had access to their books and accounts. If the Court were called upon to take immediate action, it would almost always be guided by the opinion of the Reserve Bank if immediate action was demanded. But the law which gives the same position to the opinion of the Reserve Bank is challenged as unreasonable. In our opinion such a challenge has no force. The situation that arose in this case is typical of the occasions on which this extraordinary power would normally be exercised, and, as we have said already, if the power is abused by the Reserve Bank, what will be struck down would be the action of the Reserve Bank but not the law. An appeal against the Reserve Bank's action or provision for an ex post facto finding by the Court is hardly necessary. An appeal to the Central Government will be only an appeal from Caesar to Caesar, because the Reserve Bank would hardly act without the concurrence of the Central Government and the finding by the Court would mean, to borrow the macabre phrase of Raman Nayar, J., a postmortem examination of the corpse of the banking company.'

15. The decision arrived at by the Reserve Bank culminating in the issue of the impugned order is highly proper and justified in the circumstances of the case.

16. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Advocate fee Rs. (Sic).

W. A. M. P. No. 560/1985 :

The appellants seek a direction in this miscellaneous petition directing the liquidator of the first respondent Bank to release an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from and out of the deposits held by the Gunuturu Mandala Voda Pravardhaka Vidwat Pariksha Sabha to B. Madhusudhana Sarma, the Treasurer of the said Sabha for holding 61st annual Vedic Conference of the aforesaid Sabha in the month of April, 1985. This request is made on the basis that the said Sabha is said to be having fixed deposits in the first respondent Bank to a tune of Rs. 75,000/-. Every year on the fifth day of Sri Jaggadguru Sankarcharya, the said Sabha conducts examinations and gives away 'parithoshikams' to Vedic scholars and students by holding a vedic conference. The estimate expenditure is said to be to the tune of nearly Rs. 25,000/- and, therefore, request is made to direct the liquidator for the release of Rs. 15,000/-. We do not make any observation in this behalf nor any directions will be given as sought for in view of the fact that the writ appeal itself has been disposed of on merits and it is for the liquidator to consider the matter. Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Advocates fees Rs. 150/-.

17. Sri. K. R. K. Vara Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellants seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India. We find no substantial question of law of public importance to be decided by the Supreme Court is involved. Hence leave is refused.

18. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //