Mr. G. L. Sanghi, the learned counsel for the appellant submits, inter alia, that the impugned order of the Assistant Registrar removing the appellant from the Committee of the Directors is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Act prescribes a separate procedure for calling in 680 question the appellant 's election as a Director of the Bank and that procedure having not been followed the Assistant Registrar could not have acted under section 78(1) of the Act which did not envisage the setting aside of an election as has been done by the impugned order;that the appellant having repaid the entire loan before the impugned notice under section 78(1) of the Act was issued, he was surely not a defaulter in presenti on the date of the notice and the provisions of section 78(1) were not attracted; and that even assuming that the disqualification on the ground of default is common both for election and for continuation as a Director in the Committee, the special provision for setting aside an election must prevail over section 78 as there would be apparent conflict between the two and the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant general words do not derogate from special, would apply, Mr. V. N. Patil, the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra, submits that the disqualification as defaulter continued after the election of the appellant and section 78 envisaged such a default and the appellant having continued to be a defaulter was lawfully removed and the fact that he repaid the loan before the notice was issued would not be material for the purpose of taking action under section 78.