IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28447 of 2010(E)
1. SHAJHAN,S/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
... Petitioner
2. VENKETARAMAN,PRINCIPAL,MOTHER INDIA
Vs
1. BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/10/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.28447 of 2010 (E)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 27th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
First petitioner claims to the President and the 2nd petitioner
claims to be the Principal of the Mother India International
Residential Public School Society and the Mother India International
Public School respectively.
2. According to them, in their capacity as the President and
the Principal, they were operating the accounts of the Society and
the School in the 1st respondent Bank. It is stated that while so, the
1st respondent Bank issued Ext.P3 notice informing that acting upon
a complaint made by the additional 2nd respondent, further
transactions will not be allowed. It was thereupon that the writ
petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 and seeking a direction to
the respondent Bank to lift freezing of the accounts and to permit
the petitioners to operate the same.
3. From the counter affidavit filed by the additional 2nd
respondent, the facts that are disclosed are that, though from 2009,
WP(C) No.28447/2010
-2-
the 1st petitioner was the President of the Society, for various
reasons stated in the counter affidavit, which are not relevant for
the purpose of this writ petition, the Society in its General Body
meeting held on 01/08/2010 passed Ext.R2(a) resolution electing
one Mr.Suresh Kumar as the President of the Society and the
Additional 2nd respondent as its Secretary. It is stated that on
election of the new office bearers, the same was communicated to
the Registrar of the Societies as well. According to the respondent,
thereafter they issued Ext.R2(b) letter to the Bank intimating the
change of office bearers and also making various allegations against
the petitioners. It is stated that it was thereupon that the Bank
issued Ext.P3, preventing the petitioners from further operation of
the accounts. It is also the case of the additional 2nd respondent
that since the election as per Ext.R2(a), they have already opened a
new account and are operating the same.
4. Although it is the case of the petitioners that the election
of new office bearers as per Ext.R2(a) is illegal for various reasons,
in my view, the petitioners can seek an order from this Court
requiring the Bank to permit them to operate the Bank accounts,
WP(C) No.28447/2010
-3-
only if the petitioners successfully challenge Ext.R2(a) resolution of
the Society before an appropriate Civil Court. So long as Ext.R2(a)
resolution electing new office bearers of the Society remains
unchallenged, the petitioners cannot aspire to operate the Bank
accounts in their official capacity as the President of the Society and
the Principal of the School. As at present, the petitioners have not
challenged Ext.R2(a). Therefore, this Court will not be justified in
requiring the Bank to permit the 1st petitioner to operate the Bank
accounts for the reason that, according to the respondents, he is
not the President of the Society.
Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners to seek
appropriate remedies against Ext.R2(a) resolution and also against
the 1st respondent before appropriate Civil Court, this writ petition
is disposed of.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg