Mandvi Nagrik Sahakari Bank ... vs Cooperative Societies Act

Review is sought on the ground that the Court has given time of a fortnight for implementation of amendment made in Section 74 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It is the case of the applicant-original respondent no. 3 that calling a meeting and following the procedure laid down under the Act will take minimum six weeks' time. It is also the say of the applicant-Mandvi Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited that it is ready to amend the bye-laws and undertake process for Page 1 of 3 C/MCA/934/2015 ORDER election, only after the amendment in the bye-laws is made. It is further the say of the applicant that the provisions of Section 74CC of the Act was not part of the pleadings and therefore, the order is required to be reviewed.

2. Both the sides have been heard. Learned advocate Mr. B.S Patel appearing for the applicant-Bank has urged that the time limit requires extension. He also further urged that without permission of the Reserve Bank of India, a seat cannot be reserved for small and marginal farmers, which is disputed by the otherside on the ground that loans have already been advanced to small and marginal farmers and the documents have been produced to substantiate such aspect.

3. Considering difficulty of the applicant-Bank in getting the bye-laws amended, a period of six weeks' from today, as sought for, is granted.

4. With regard to prayer in respect of Section 74CC of the Act, it is to be noted that after hearing both the sides, in para 20 of the order, directions have been issued to Page 2 of 3 C/MCA/934/2015 ORDER give effect and implement, the amendment of Section 74 of the Act, by making requisite changes in the bye-laws in conformity with such amended provisions.

5. This Court does not require to go into this aspect particularly on the averment of difficulty of reserving seat for marginal farmer nor of having advanced loans to farmers and those documents, when they were never brought on the record of the main petition, and secondly, all that was required to be adjudicated has been done after extensive hearing in accordance with the provisions of law. It was strictly the interpretation of the statute which was to be made by the Court where the existence of individual claim was not part of lis between the parties. Therefore, the request for review stands partly allowed to the extent of extending the period for amendment, as discussed above.

Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of.

{Ms. Sonia Gokani, J.} Prakash* Page 3 of 3