IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9926 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LAMBODARAN NAIR P.K. I.P.S.(RETIRED), HONORARY SECRETARY, MANNAM MEMORIAL NATIONAL CLUB, REGISTERED NO.268/1991, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY MR.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. MR.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN (KERALA AND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, AND MAHI), RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 2. THE MANAGER, DHANALEKSHMI BANK, MANACAUD, TC 41/2343, MALSONS TOWERS, BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009. 3. THE DHANALEKSHMI BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, CORPORATE OFFICE, TRICHUR-680001. 4. SHRI.MURALI K.SREEDHAR, SREEDHAR COTTAGE, SANGEETH NAGAR-234-NEAR MRS BUILDING, TYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC R4 BY ADV. MR.JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL, MR.VARGHESE PARAMBIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9926/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CLUB MEETING HELD ON 21.1.2010. P2:- COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 21.1.2010 BY THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO.160/2010 DTD. JANUARY, 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 22.1.2010 TO THE MANAGER, DHANALEKSHMI BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P5:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE DTD. 17.1.2010 RETURNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RS. 9837/-. P5(a):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 29.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE DHANALEKSHMI BANK LIMITED THRISSUR-1. P6:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE DTD. 21.12.09 RS. 5177/- ISSUED BY THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LIMITED TO THE BRINDA AGENCIES. P7:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE DTD. 14.1.2010 RS. 18905/- ISSUED BY THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LIMITED TO THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IST CIRCLE, TVM. P7(a):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 28.1.2010 RS. 5177/- ISSUED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD. THRISSUR- 1. P7(b):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 30.1.2010 CHEQUE NO.241333 RS. 18905/- ISSUED BY THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LIMITED, TRIVANDRUM 23. P8:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 30.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE BRANCH HEAD, DHANALAKSHMI BANK, TRIVANDRUM TO THE PETITIONER. P9:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 8.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MANAGER, DHANALAKSHMI BANK, MANACAUD, TVM. P10:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 17.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, TRIVANDRUM. P11:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.OBO(T)/A/13460/DLB/2009-2010 DTD. 19.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN , MAHE. P12:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 25.2.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, TRIVANDRUM 23. W.P.(C) NO.9926/2010 P13:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN , TRIVANDRUM 33. P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 15.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN , TRIVANDRUM 33 TO THE SECRETARY MANNAM MEMORIAL NATIONAL CLUB. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R4(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 8.6.09 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R4(b):- COPY OF THE AGENDA OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING DTD. 16.1.2010. R4(c):- PRINTED RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING. R4(d):- COPY OF THE ORIGINAL BYE LAW OF THE CLUB OBTAINED FROM THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR ON 1.3.2010 R4(e):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21.1.10 ISSUED TO 4TH RESPONDENT FROM THE PETITIONER. R4(f):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 8.3.2010 ADDRESSED TO B.S.BASI INFORMING THE DTD. OF THE NEXT GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE CLUB. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.9926 of 2010 (M) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Honorary Secretary of a Club called Mannam Memorial National Club, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. It is stated that in the last general election, the 4th respondent was elected as its Treasurer, and was discharging duties attached to that post. It would appear that there were allegations against the 4th respondent and Ext.P1 is the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 21/01/2010, in which the Executive Committee authorised the Secretary of the Club to initiate proceedings against the 4th respondent including his suspension. It was further resolved that as an adhoc arrangement, the Vice President of the Club will henceforth discharge the duties of the Treasurer. 3. The petitioner states that in pursuance to Ext.P1, Ext.P2 order was issued by the Secretary placing the 4th respondent under suspension. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.160/2010 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram WP(C) No.9926/2010 -2- praying for a decree of injunction against the Managing Committee of the Club restraining it from expelling the petitioner from the Managing Committee and to allow him to perform duties as the Treasurer till his term expires. According to the petitioner, the suit is pending and no interim order has been passed by the Court. 4. While so, the petitioner by Ext.P4 informed the 2nd respondent Bank that in the Executive Committee meeting held on 21/01/2010 it was decided to place the 4th respondent under suspension and to entrust the responsibility of Treasurer to the Vice President as an ad hoc arrangement till an alternate regular arrangement is made. 5. In terms of the bye-laws of the Club, cheques are to be signed by the Treasurer along with the President or the Secretary. It is stated that prior to the suspension of the 4th respondent, Exts.P5, P6 & P7 cheques were issued by him, which were presented before the Bank after Ext.P1 resolution was passed. These cheques were returned by the Bank with the endorsement “Account Blocked” and Exts.P5(a), P7(a) and P7(B) are the intimations. It is stated that thereafter the Bank by Ext.P8 requested the petitioner to furnish a copy of Ext.P1 minutes, which was furnished by the petitioner. WP(C) No.9926/2010 -3- However, the Bank refused to honour the cheques of the petitioner Club. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed Exts.P10 & P13 complaints before the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P14 proceedings taking the view that in view of Clause 9(3)(d) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006, the complaint was not maintainable as O.S.No.160/2010 was pending before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. On that basis, the petitioner was informed that the complaint has been closed. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent having been placed under suspension by Ext.P1 minutes of the Executive Committee, in the said minutes itself, the Committee made an ad hoc arrangement till alternate/regular arrangements are made. It is stated that the Bank having refused to accept cheques, entire activities of the Club have come to a stand still and that the Club is prevented from making payments for the purchases made, towards salary, and is also unable to renew the FL-4A licence, which is due for renewal. It is further contended that the view taken by the 1st respondent in Ext.P14 is absolutely irrational. WP(C) No.9926/2010 -4- 8. The stand taken by the Bank is that Ext.P1 resolution and also the arrangement made therein, are not in terms of the bye-laws of the Club. 9. The 4th respondent has entered appearance and filed his counter affidavit. He also challenges the validity of Ext.P1, the resolution passed by the Executive Committee. According to him, the suspension is illegal and he still continues as the Treasurer of the Club. It is stated that he is prepared to discharge the duties of the Treasurer, and therefore, prayer sought by the Club is unsustainable. 10. I have considered the submissions made. 11. In this writ petition, this Court is not concerned with the validity or otherwise of Ext.P1 minutes placing the 4th respondent under suspension. As already seen, the 4th respondent has already approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.160/2010, in which the validity or otherwise of Ext.P1 will also be an issue for the consideration of the Civil Court. Therefore, this Court need not venture into that controversy. 12. The main issue arises for consideration in this writ petition is the validity of Ext.P14 proceedings of the Banking WP(C) No.9926/2010 -5- Ombudsman. The complaint made by the petitioner against the Bank has been closed by the Ombudsman under Clause 9(3)(d) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 for the reason that O.S.No.160/2010 is pending before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the Ombudsman, under the Scheme, no complaint shall lie unless the complaint does not pertain to the same cause of action for which any proceedings before any Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator or any other Forum is pending or a Decree of Award or Order has been passed by any such Court, Tribunal, Arbitrator or Forum. According to the Ombudsman, since the suit is pending, it cannot entertain the complaint made by the petitioner. However, the Ombudsman appears to have misdirected itself. The cause of action in respect of which the suit has been filed by the 4th respondent is against Ext.P1 minutes, and to prevent his expulsion from the Club. On the other hand, the Club approached the Ombudsman aggrieved by the refusal of the Bank to honour the cheques presented by it. Therefore, the cause of action, which led the 4th respondent to approach the Civil Court and the Club to approach the Ombudsman, are different. In that view of the matter, the pendency of the suit or WP(C) No.9926/2010 -6- Clause 9(3)(d) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 could not have stood in the way of the Ombudsman in entertaining the complaint made by the petitioner Club. Therefore, I cannot uphold Ext.P14 order and the order is quashed. 13. Now what remains is the prayer of the petitioner that atleast as an ad hoc arrangement, the Bank should honour the cheques. It is pointed out that the Club has a total membership of about 650, and that its daily transactions are through the respondent Bank, and that if the cheques are not honoured, the entire activities of the Club will come to a stand still. It is pointed out that the Club has to make payments for the purchases it makes and towards salary, and has to renew licences. It is stated that for all these, the Bank should honour cheques issued by the Club. 14. As already seen, Ext.P1 is the resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the Club. By this resolution, the Executive Committee has entrusted the duties of the Treasurer to the Vice President of the Club. Evidently, the arrangement made as per Ext.P1 is only an adhoc arrangement valid till an alternate arrangement is made. 15. Since the petitioner Club is entirely depending on the WP(C) No.9926/2010 -7- respondent Bank for its transactions, I feel that in this extraordinary situation, this Court will be justified in directing the respondent Bank to honour the cheques issued by the Club, duly signed by the Vice President authorised by Ext.P1, provided the cheque is signed by the Secretary and also the President. 16. However, this ad hoc arrangement cannot continue and a General Body Meeting should be held by the Club and proceedings against the 4th respondent shall be completed, and if necessary, fresh election to the post of Treasurer, shall be held without any further delay. It is directed that these processes should be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from today, and only until then, the arrangement as ordered above will continue. The 4th respondent expressed an apprehension that he will not be given notice of the general body to be held as directed above. It is made clear on behalf of the Club that the notice will be given to the 4th respondent. This submission is recorded. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg