IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

(ORIGINAL JURISDICITION)

W.P.No. /2008 (GM)

BETWEEN :

1. THE PRESIDENT/CHAIRMAN
The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd., Corporate Office
SVC Towers
II Floor, Jawharlal Nehru Road
Vakola, Santacruz (East)
MUMBAI – 400 055.

2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd.,Corporate Office
SVC Towers
II Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
Vakola, Santacruz (East)
MUMBAI – 400 055.

3. SRI.S.S.PATIL
The Returning Officer
The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd. and Deputy Registrar
of Co-Operative Societies
K.East Ward.
MUMBAI.

4. THE SENIOR MANAGER

The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd.,
Malleswaram Branch
# 49/1, 5th Cross
Malleswaram
BANGALORE – 560 003. .. PETITIONERS
AND

1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA
Ali Asker Road
BANGALORE.
Represented by the
Registrar

2. THE CENTRAL ARBITRATOR

OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
IN BANGALORE
No.289, 7th Main
Padmanabha Nagar
BSK II Stage
BANGALORE-560 070.
3. Mr.MOHAN V.HEBLE

1
 S/o. Late.V.B.Heble
# 51/1, “Saphalya”
4th Cross, Srirampuram
BANGALORE – 560 021. .. RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS

11.07.2008 :: Election Notification issued by the Election

Returning Officer

07.08.2008 to
14.08.2008 :: Filing of Nominations

22.08.2008 :: Scrutiny of Nominations

23.08.2008 :: Publication of valid nominations

29.08.2008 and
30.08.2008 :: Withdrawal of Nominations

01.09.2008 :: Publication of Final List of Candidates

21.09.2008 :: Date of Polling

24.09.2008 :: Counting of Votes

25.09.2008 :: Filing of Petition by the 3rd

Respondent before
The Central Arbitrator of Co-Operative Societies,
Bangalore Under Sec 84 (2)(C) of the Multi-
State Co-Operative Societies Act

27.09.2008 :: Annual General Body Meeting and

Declaration of Results

20.10.2008 :: Case listed for hearing and

Appearance of Petitioners

20.10.2008 :: Interlocutory Application filed by

the Petitioners under Section 84 of
the Multi- State Co-Operative
Societies Act.

14.11.2008 :: Orders passed rejecting the Application

BANGALORE
DATE : 22.11.2008 ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS

2
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

(ORIGINAL JURISDICITION)

W.P.No. /2008 (GM )

BETWEEN :

1. THE PRESIDENT/CHAIRMAN
The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd., Corporate Office
SVC Towers
II Floor, Jawharlal Nehru Road
Vakola, Santacruz (East)
MUMBAI – 400 055.

2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd.,Corporate Office
SVC Towers
II Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
Vakola, Santacruz (East)
MUMBAI – 400 055.

3. SRI.S.S.PATIL
The Returning Officer
The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd. and Deputy Registrar
of Co-Operative Societies
K.East Ward.
MUMBAI.

4. THE SENIOR MANAGER

The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd.,
Malleswaram Branch
# 49/1, 5th Cross
Malleswaram
BANGALORE – 560 003. .. PETITIONERS

AND
1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA
Ali Asker Road
BANGALORE.
Represented by the
Registrar

2. THE CENTRAL ARBITRATOR

OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
IN BANGALORE
No.289, 7th Main
Padmanabha Nagar
BSK II Stage
BANGALORE-560 070.

3
3. Mr.MOHAN V.HEBLE
S/o. Late.V.B.Heble
# 51/1, “Saphalya”
4th Cross, Srirampuram
BANGALORE – 560 021. .. RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The Petitioners above named most respectfully submit as follows :

1. The First Petitioner submits that M/s The Shamrao Vithal Co-
Operative Bank Ltd., is a Financial Institution, registered as a Co-
Operative Bank under the Multi-State Co-Operative Societies (Act X of
1904) and is deemed to be registered under the Multi-State Co-
Operative Societies Act 2002, having its registered office at SVC
Towers, Nehru Road, Vakola, Santa Cruz (E) Mumbai – 400 055 and
that the First Petitioner is the Chairman, the Second Petitioner is the
Chief Executive Officer and the Fourth Petitioner is the Senior Manager
of The Shamrao Vithal Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Malleswaram Branch,
Bangalore. The Third Petitioner is the Returning Officer appointed by
the Board of Directors of the Bank, in terms of provisions of the
amended Rule19 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Rule, 2002.,
to conduct the elections for the Board of Directors of the Bank for the
period 2008-2013. The Returning Officer is a District Deputy Registrar,
a Government Officer having his Office at Malhotra House, Mumbai.

2. The First Petitioner submits that the Third Petitioner was duly
appointed as the Returning Officer and pursuant to the appointment,
the Third Petitioner had issued a Notification dated 11.07.2008,
notifying the calendar of election events to be conducted to the Board
of Directors of The Shamrao Vithal Co-Operative Bank Ltd. The Copy of
the Election Notification is produced as Annexure-A.

3. The Petitioners submit that pursuant to the election notification,

several members of the Bank had filed their nominations which were
scrutinized and accepted at Mumbai at the office of the Returning
Officer and the election was scheduled to be held on 21.09.2008

4
between 10.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M. The Third Petitioner had widely
published the calendar of events and the notices were prominently
exhibited in all the branches of the Bank.

4. The First Petitioner submits that The Shamrao Vithal Co-

Operative Bank Ltd., has its registered office at Mumbai and Branches
spread over different parts of the Union of India and has several
branches in the limits of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and
one such branch is located at Malleswaram, Bangalore.

5. The First Petitioner submits that the Third Respondent was one
of the contending aspirant for the post of Director of the Bank and had
submitted his nomination and the same was accepted by the Third
Petitioner and the Final list of candidates for the elections of the Board
of Directors of the Bank was finalized by the Returning Officer at
Mumbai and the same was published by the Third Petitioner at
Mumbai.

6. The Third Petitioner under his prerogative and powers as the

Returning Officer had installed polling booths in different parts and one
such polling booth was installed at the Malleswaram Branch of the
Bank at Bangalore to facilitate the local share holders of the Bank who
could cast their vote on the date of polling. The Returning Officer had
notified the polling booths and their location. The Third Respondent
had lodged an objection with the Returning Officer requesting for at
least four centres at Bangalore to locate the polling booth vide his
letter dated 23/29.07.2008. The Returning Officer vide his letter dated
30.07.2008 has rejected the request vide his letter dated 30.07.2008.
The copy of the letter dated 23/29.07.2008 and the letter dated
30.07.2008 are produced as Annexures-B and C.

7. The First Petitioner submits that the results of the election of the
Board of Directors of the Bank was declared by the Third Petitioner at
the Annual General Body Meeting held at Mumbai on 27.09.2008 and
the Third Respondent was unsuccessful.

8. The First Petitioner submits that the Third Respondent, has filed
a Petition before the Second Respondent Arbitrator at Bangalore,

5
appointed by the First Respondent, the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Karnataka State, under the delegated powers of the Central
Registrar under Section 84 (2) (c) of the Multi - State Co-Operative
Societies Act, 2002, raising an Election Dispute in
DIS.CA.DIS.SVCS.43/2008 and notices were issued to the Petitioners
and the Petitioners have appeared before the Second Respondent,
Arbitrator at Bangalore and had submitted an application questioning
the Territorial Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to entertain the Petition on
the Ground that the Election Notification was issued by the Third
Petitioner at Mumbai and the Results were announced at Mumbai and
the Officer of the Returning Officer was also located at Mumbai and
that for the sake of convenience of some of the Share Holders, a
Polling Booth was installed at the Malleswaram Branch, Bangalore and
therefore, the Arbitrator at Bangalore would not have territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the election Petition.

9. The First Petitioner submits that the affidavit in support of the

Interim application questioning the Territorial Jurisdiction was signed
by the Assistant General Manager of the Bank, Bangalore and the
learned Arbitrator has held that the Deponent has no locus–standi to
file an affidavit in support of an application and consequently has
dismissed the application vide orders dated 14.11.2008 also holding
that the Arbitrator at Bangalore has jurisdiction to try the election
petition.

10. The Petitioners have a joint and a common interest in the

impugned order passed by the Second Respondent and therefore, all
the Petitioners have joined together to present the above Writ Petition
on payment of single Court Fee and the Petitioners crave leave of this
Hon’ble Court to allow the Petitioners to present the petition.

11. The First Petitioner submits that the Multi-State Co-Operative

Societies Act, 2002 is silent on the question of the Appeal or Remedy
against such orders and as there is no other efficacious remedy
available to the Petitioners and the Petitioners being aggrieved by the
orders dated 14.11.2008 passed by the Arbitrator at Bangalore,
produced as ANNEXURE-D craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to invoke

6
the Writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India.

12. The Petitioners have not filed any other Writ or case before any
other Court or Forum on the same cause of action and impugned order.

GROUNDS

13. The learned Arbitrator failed to appreciate the facts and

documents on record and proceeded to pass the impugned orders
arbitrarily and the same is opposed to the Principles of Natural Justice
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

14. The learned Arbitrator failed to take note of the fact that the
Election Notification was issued by the Returning Officer at Mumbai
and the cause of action for the Third Respondent to lodge an election
dispute arose from out of the Election Notification issued at Mumbai
and the registered office of the Bank is also at Mumbai and the Annual
General Body Meeting was held at Mumbai where the results were
declared by the Third Petitioner and therefore, the Central Arbitrator at
Bangalore suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain the
Petition and therefore, ought to have returned the Petition for proper
presentation.

15. The Learned Arbitrator has failed to furnish sufficient reasons to

negate the claim of the Petitioners on the factual aspects of the
averments contained in the affidavit and the impugned order is not a
speaking order.

16. The Learned Arbitrator has failed to understand that his

appointment as Arbitrator, by the Co-operative Registrar of Karnataka
under the powers delegated by the Central Registrar, is only in respect
of dispute arising u/s. 84 in the state of Karnataka and not elsewhere.

17. The Learned Arbitrator failed to consider that the election of

Board of Directors of the Multi State Bank, whose registered office is in
Mumbai and the Returning Officer appointed by the Board of Director,
as per the provision, is from Mumbai. The Returning Officer is a District

7
Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies Maharashtra, whose
office is in Mumbai. And therefore there is a lack of jurisdiction to
entertain the Petition and therefore, ought to have returned the same
for proper presentation before the Arbitrator at Mumbai

18. The learned Arbitrator failed to note that the Petition does not
mention the place and nature of cause of action and the Petition is
bald and the learned Arbitrator without applying his mind has accepted
the Petition maintaining that the Petition can be entertained at
Bangalore relating to an election dispute which has arisen out of
ANNEXURE-A issued by the Third Petitioner.

19. The learned Arbitrator has failed to consider the objections

raised in the application and has not appreciated the question of law
relating to territorial jurisdiction.

20. The learned Arbitrator failed to note that no part of the cause of
action arose within the jurisdiction of Bangalore for the Third
Respondent to raise an election dispute.

21. The learned Arbitrator failed to note that the reliefs sought for by
the Third Respondent in the Petition is based on rejection of the Third
Respondent’s request for additional Polling centres by the Returning
Officer, whose office is Mumbai and therefore, the Third Respondent
ought to have presented the Petition at Mumbai and not at Bangalore.

22. The learned Arbitrator was mislead to accept the contention of

the Third Respondent that since, a polling booth was installed at the
Malleswaram Branch at Bangalore, the Petition could be entertained
which is a misconception of law and requires to be corrected.

23. The learned Arbitrator has erroneously come to the conclusion

that since, the Central Arbitrator Bangalore is appointed by the Central
Registrar at New Delhi and since, the Central Registrar at New Delhi
has jurisdiction any where in India to entertain the Petition and
therefore, the Arbitrator at Bangalore would automatically have
jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition. The Central Registrar
has delegated the Powers vide Notification dated 24.2.2003 to the

8
respective State Registrar to appoint Arbitrators for their State to settle
dispute arising in their respective state and therefore the Arbitrator
appointed for Bangalore can not deal with the election matter of the
Bank whose registered Office is in Mumbai and the Office of the
Petitioner No. 3 Returning Officer, who is in charge of election, is in
Mumbai.

24. The Learned Arbitrator erred in not considering the Notification

dated 24.2.2003 of the Ministry of Agriculture & Co-operation wherein
the Powers excercisable by the Central registrar under sec. 84 of the
Multi State Co-operative Societies Act 2002, shall also be excercisable
by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies of the State / Union
Territories in respect of the Societies located in their respective
Jurisdiction. This itself means that the Arbitrator appointed by
respective States Registrar should deal the matter in respect of the
societies in their respective area / jurisdiction.

25. The learned Arbitrator has come to an erroneous conclusion that

the affidavit in support of an application filed by the Assistant General
Manager of the Bank Bangalore is improper on the ground that the
Assistant General Manager has no locus-standi to file an affidavit on
behalf of the Bank in support of an application and as thereby negated
the objections of the Petitioner on the question of jurisdiction.

26. The learned Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction beyond the
territories and is opposed to the Notification dated 13.12.2004 issued
by the Department of Co-Operation, Government of Karnataka.

27. Viewed from any angle of the matter the impugned order, is
capricious, arbitrary and is therefore liable to be quashed.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM PRAYER

28. The First Petitioner submits that the Petitioners have been called
upon to file the statement of objections to the main Petition by
26.11.2008 and the learned Arbitrator proposes to proceed with the
proceedings which will cause great prejudice and the matter relates to
an election dispute where no part of the cause of action has arisen at

9
Bangalore and having rejected the application of the Petitioners
questioning the territorial jurisdiction, if the proceedings are proceeded
with further, the Petitioners would suffer serious irreversible
consequences. Hence the prayer for interim relief.

PRAYE R

Wherefore, the Petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to :

a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the

impugned Orders passed in Dispute No.CA.DIS. SVCS.43/2008,
dated 14.11.2008 passed on the Interim Application by the Second
Respondent produced as ANNEXURE-D ;

b) To issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction declaring

that the election dispute raised by the Third Respondent in Dispute
No.DIS.CA.DIS. SVCS.43/2008 is not maintainable and suffers from
lack of territorial jurisdiction.

c) Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble

Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case in the interest of justice and equity.

INTERIM PRAYER

Pending disposal of this Petition, the Petitioners pray that this

Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay all further proceedings before the
learned Central Arbitrator of Co-Operative Societies Bangalore in
Dispute No.CA.DIS.SVCS.43/2008 pending disposal of the Writ Petition,
so as to meet the ends of justice and equity.

BANGALORE,
DATED : 22.11.2008 ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE

Mr.N.JAIPRAKASH RAO
JAYPEE ASSOCIATES
“LAW FIRM”
# 38, “KRISHNA”
I Cross, Malleshwaram
BANGALORE – 560 003.
E-Mail: jpnarve@hotmail.com

10
MYDOC/WRIT PETITION/DOWNLOADED-SVC-HIGH COURT/P4/GF-3

11
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

(ORIGINAL JURISDICITION)

W.P.No. /2008

BETWEEN :

1. THE PRESIDENT/CHAIRMAN
The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd., Corporate Office
SVC Towers
II Floor, Jawharlal Nehru Road
Vakola, Santacruz (East)
MUMBAI – 400 055.

2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd.,Corporate Office
SVC Towers
II Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
Vakola, Santacruz (East)
MUMBAI – 400 055.

3. SRI.S.S.PATIL
The Returning Officer
The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd. and Deputy Registrar
of Co-Operative Societies
K.East Ward.
MUMBAI.

4. THE SENIOR MANAGER

The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op
Bank Ltd.,
Malleswaram Branch
# 49/1, 5th Cross
Malleswaram
BANGALORE – 560 003. .. PETITIONERS

AND

1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA
Ali Asker Road
BANGALORE.

Represented by the
Registrar

12
2. THE CENTRAL ARBITRATOR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
IN BANGALORE
No.289, 7th Main
Padmanabha Nagar
BSK II Stage
BANGALORE-560 070.

3. Mr.MOHAN V.HEBLE
S/o. Late.V.B.Heble
# 51/1, “Saphalya”
4th Cross, Srirampuram
BANGALORE – 560 021. .. RESPONDENTS

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Mr.H.M.Shankar Murthy, Senior Manager of The Shamrao Vithal

Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state
on oath as follows:

1. I submit that I am the Senior Manager of the Shamrao Vithal Co-

Operative Bank Ltd., and the Fourth Petitioner in the above case and
that I am well aware of the facts and circumstance and hence, I am
competent to swear to this affidavit for and on behalf of the other
Petitioners also.

2. I submit that averments made in the Writ Petition in paras 1 to 28

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and
information.

3. I submit that the Annexure-A to D are the true copies.

What is stated above are true and correct.

Solemnly affirmed by me on this the Twenty Fifth Day of

November, Two Thousand Eight (25.11.2008), at Bangalore.

IDENTIFIED BY ME:

DEPONENT
SWORN TO BEFORE ME

ADVOCATE

13
No. of corrections:

MYDOC/WRIT PETITION/DOWNLOADED-SVC-HIGH COURT/P4/GF-3

14