Disposed

Arunkumar Shantilal Munot v. Lalit Kumar Javerilal Modi and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2013ARA/32/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of arbitration appeals challenging an order dismissing an application to set aside an award declaring appellants defaulters in a cooperative society. The court granted liberty to apply for vacant posts after the disqualification period expires but did not dispose of the substantive appeal against the impugned award.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to appellants to apply for filling up posts of Directors of the Bank after completion of one year from April 11, 2013. Bank to consider applications on merits.

Arunkumar Shantilal Munot Vs Lalit Kumar Javerilal Modi… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2013)

906-ARA-32.2012.sxw

1/3

hvn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2012

¶7

Arunkumar Shantilal Munot … Appellant Versus Lalit Kumar Javerilal Modi & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Versus Lalit Kumar Javerilal Modi & Anr. … Respondents WITH ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2012 Shivnath Raghoji Kadbhane … Appellant Versus Lalit Kumar Javerilal Modi & Anr. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Amit B. Borkar for the Appellants.

¶10

Mr. K.Y. Mandlik i/by Mr. S.R. Waghmare for respondent No.1 .

¶11

Mr. P.N. Joshi for respondent no. 2.

¶12

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA,J. DATED : MARCH 19, 2013

¶13

P.C.

¶14

By these appeals filed under section 37, the appellants seek to challenge the order dated 11^th April, 2012 passed by the Principal District Judge Nashik dismissing the application filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 by the appellant. By the said application, the appellants had challenged the impugned award dated 13^th March, 2012 declaring that the appellants were defaulters of the Cooperative Societies and had incurred disqualification under section 43 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 to be a member of

¶15

2/3 906-ARA-32.2012.sxw

¶16

the Managing Committee of the Bank. By order dated 11^th April, 2012 the learned Principal District Judge, Nashik dismissed the said applications under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It was however, made clear that the disqualification of the appellants shall be subject to proviso to sub section 43(1) (g) of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The learned counsel appearing for the parties invited my attention to sub section 43(1)(g) and proviso thereof which indicates that the member of the board who has ceased to hold the office as such shall not be eligible, for a period of one year, from the date on which he ceased to hold office, for re-election as a member of the Board of the Multi-State Cooperative society of which he was member or for election to the board of any other multi-state cooperative society.

¶17

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that though there is merit in the appeals filed by the appellants, however, in view of the fact that one year from the date of passing of the impugned order passed by the Principal District Judge would expire on 10^th April, 2013 and in view of the fact that out of three vacancies of the post of Directors of the Bank, two posts are still vacant which are required to be filled up in accordance with the bylaws, Appellants would apply to the bank for such posts under the bye-laws.

¶18

Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the Bank submits that in view of the disqualification period under section 43(1)(g) of the Multi State Act would expire on 10^th April, 2013, subject to other qualifications, the appellants would be

¶19

3/3 906-ARA-32.2012.sxw

¶20

entitled to apply for such posts falling vacant and if they apply for such posts, the same shall be considered in accordance with the law and on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Arbitrator as well as by the learned Principal District Judge, Nashik.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel, the appeals are disposed of by granting liberty to the appellants to apply for filing up such post of Directors of the Bank on completion of one year with effect from 11^th April, 2012 and if any such application is made, the same shall be considered by the Bank in accordance with law and on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made by the learned arbitrator as well as by the Principal District Judge, Nashik. It is made clear that the Bank would be free to fill up such posts in accordance with the bylaws of the bank after 11^th April, 2013. Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

In view of the disposal of the appeals, Civil Application No. 27 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

Arunkumar Shantilal Munot v. Lalit Kumar Javerilal Modi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunkumar Shantilal Munot v. Lalit Kumar Javerilal Modi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Highways Authority of India Vs M/S Ashoka Buildcon Ltd(Joint Venture With Birla Gtm Enterpose Ltd)

The Solapur Municipal Corporation Vs M/S. Garuda Aviation Servies Pvt, Ltd.

Bharat Infrastructure and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Park Darshan Chs Ltd. and 8 Ors.

Shivnath Raghoji Kadbhane Vs Lalit Kumar Javerilal Modi and Anr.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Pacific Gulf Shipping Co. Ltd.

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Shiv Singh S/O Girwar Singh and Anr.