IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34084 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. CHARTERED SUCURITY INDIA LIMITED, CHANDY'S DAVIS CHACKO BUILDINGS, P.O.ROAD, EAST THRISSUR-680001 REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.P.DEVASSY. 2. RAJU K.KOODARATHIL, KOODARATHIL HOUSE, LOURDEPURAM, EAST FORT, THRISSUR-680005. BY ADV. SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL SRI.JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIRS, 'A' WING, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-11001. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, B.M.C.ROAD, THRIKKAKKARA, KOCHI-682021. 3. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, CSB BHAVAN ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSU-680 020. 4. R.VENKATARAMAN, CHAIRMAN & CEO, THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, CSB BHAVAN, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR-680020. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1-2 SC SRI.SANTHALINGAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).34084/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners who claim to be the shareholders of the third respondent, the Catholic Syrian Bank, are aggrieved by certain restrictions on the right of the renunciation forming part of the conditions imposed in a Rights Issue offered by the Bank, as evidenced by Ext.P4. According to the petitioners, restriction on such renunciation violates Section 81(1)(c) of the Companies Act. Third respondent, is not a public sector Bank. At any rate the disputes, which arise out of the conditions included in the Rights Issue, are not matters which can be agitated or adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy of the petitioner, if any, lies before the competent authority under the Companies Act. 2. I heard Mr.Isaac Perumpillil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Santhlingam, learned senior counsel appearing for R3 and R4. W.P.(C).34084/2008 2 3. In the result, writ petition is dismissed without considering the contentions of the petitioners on merits and without prejudice to their right to seek appropriate remedies as are available to them in law. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs