TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... days to respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 7. W.P.(C) No.20425 of 2021 Admit. Adv. Santhosh Mathew takes notice for respondent Nos.2, 3, 9 and 10. Issue notice by speed post returnable in ten days to respondent Nos.1, 4 to 8 and 11 to 14. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions and the learned counsel for the common respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petitions on the prayer for interim order. 2. Parties and documents are referred to in this order, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.19758 of 2021. 3. The matters relate to the affairs of M/s Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. (the Bank), a listed private sector banking company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The first petitioner is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued by the Secretary to the Board of the Bank to the first petitioner. The petitioners, in the circumstances, seek, among others, directions to respondents 2, 3 and 8 to place the notices issued by them under Section 160 of the Act, signifying their candidature as Directors of the Bank in the ensuing Annual General Meeting as provided for under Section 160 of the Act. 4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20425 of 2021 is a former Director of the Bank. It is stated by the petitioner that since the NRC of the Bank has decided not to recommend his name for reappointment as Director of the Bank, he too gave notice signifying his candidature as Director of the Bank as provided for under Section 160 of the Act. It is alleged that he was also issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ests of the shareholders of the Bank. 7. While the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19758 of 2021 confine their relief mainly to a direction to the Bank to place the notice issued by them signifying their candidature as Directors of the Bank in the ensuing Annual General Meeting, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20425 of 2021 seeks larger reliefs concerning the governance of the Bank. In the context of the said larger reliefs, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20425 of 2021 has submitted, placing reliance on the communication issued by the Reserve Bank of India to the Bank on 03.06.2021 that the Bank has had a chequered history on the governance issues, forcing the Reserve Bank to intervene at regular intervals. It was als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k is not one running on Government funding and its shareholding is held by private individuals. It was also submitted that the Bank does not discharge any statutory duty or public duty or positive obligation of public nature. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the writ petitions do not contain any public law element to warrant invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the Bank and that the grievance raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions is purely private in nature. With regard to the case of the petitioners that the Bank is statutorily obliged under Section 160 of the Act to place the notice of the petitioners before the General Meeting, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the same is only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n hand are cases where it is necessary to compel the Bank to enforce its statutory obligation as also obligations of public nature. 10. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Bank as to the maintainability of the writ petition, it is to be mentioned that it is now trite that a writ petition can be entertained even against a private body when it becomes necessary to compel such body to enforce any statutory obligation or such obligations of public nature. The said proposition has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Sagar Thomas also. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by the Bank in W.P.(C) No.19758 of 2021, the Bank does not have a case in the counter affidavit that it is not obliged to place the notices ....