Chennai, May 13 (PTI) The Madras High Court has directed the Managing Director of Repco Bank and an IAS officer to appear before it on June 17 in connection with a contempt of court case filed against them.
Justice G Jayachandran issued the direction last week (May 5) while allowing a sub-application seeking to re-open a contempt application, closed in 2021.
R S Isabella, MD of Repco Bank and Vivek Agarwal, Joint Secretary (Co-op), Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies) are required to appear before the court on June 17.
“This court is prima facie satisfied that there is a deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order passed by this court. Wanton violation of the statutory provision in the bye-law amended,” and hence the order to issue statutory notice to Vivek Agarwal and Isabella, the judge said.
Originally, P Thanapal, an Indian citizen repatriated from Sri Lanka, had filed a contempt application in 2021 alleging that even after lapse of more than a year, an order passed by the court in 2020 had not been complied with by the authorities and the said non-compliance was intentional. No attempt had been made to amend the bye-laws of Repco Bank in tune with the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, despite specific direction given by this Court, he contended.
In the said contempt petition, the duo filed counter listing the steps taken to amend the bye-laws and the reason for the delay. They also informed the court that the amendment to the bye-laws in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs. Further, the Bank gave an assurance that as per the amended bye-laws, the process of electing the Board of Directors would be completed within 6 to 8 months. And, recording the same, the contempt petition was closed in June, 2021.
The present sub-application was filed by Thanapal to re-open the contempt petition on the ground that the duo had suppressed certain documents and got the contempt application closed. The draft amendments were not approved.
Without the approval, bye-law 30 and 39 were amended in violation of Section 41 and Section 48 of the Act, he contended. PTI COR KH KH
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.