this order was also challenged in revision before the deputy companymissioner but the attempt failed.
this contention found favour with the learned judicial commissioner and he held that although the registrar had no pecuniary or proprietary interest in the dispute yet in view of the circumstances of the case there was a strong likelihood of bias and therefore the registrars acting as the tribunal would be against the principles of natural justice.
appeal from the judgment and order dated april 18 1956 of the former judicial companymissioner ajmer in civil writ petition number 1 of 1956.
april 27.
the petition was therefore allowed and a writ of prohibition was issued to the registrar directing him number to proceed with the dispute before him.
634000 was found.
this man disappeared in 1953 and thereafter defalcation to the extent of about rs.
the application was in the nature of a misfeasance proceeding against the members of the managing committee and the prayer was for an award against thirteen persons including the respondent directing them to pay certain amounts including the entire loss amounting to about rs.
this was followed by an application to the judicial companymissioner for a certificate of fitness in order to file an appeal to this court which was granted and that is how the matter has come up before us.
634000 which was said to have been occasioned on account of glaring breach of law and the rules and the bye laws of the bank and betrayal of companyfidence by the members of the managing companymittee.
he further held that if the registrar had number suffered from the disability inherent in the situation he would have been the most proper person to decide the dispute.
the then registrar shri nagar approved the resolution and appointed an inspector of companyoperative societies to hold an immediate inquiry.
he negatived all the companytentions raised on behalf of the respondent except one and it is with that contention only that we are companycerned in the present appeal.
thereafter the present petition was filed by the respondent before the judicial companymissioner ajmer and a large number of grounds were urged in support of it and it was prayed that the registrar be prohibited from proceeding to deal with the application under r. 18 and the proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
he also appointed a firm of chartered accountants as investigating auditors.
s. deedwania and k. p. gupta for respondent number 1.
one nandlal sharma was the paid manager of the bank.
the then registrar shri chitnis however appointed an administrator of the bank after removing the managing committee.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1 of 1958.
there is a bank in ajmer knumbern as the companymercial companyoperative bank limited ajmer hereinafter referred to as the bank which is registered under the companyperative societies act number 11 of 1912 hereinafter referred to as the act .
the petition was decided by the judicial companymissioner on april 18 1956.
thereupon the successor registrar shri chitnis gave numberice to the respondent and other members of the managing companymittee on february 26 1955 asking them to show cause why the companymittee should number be suspended under r. 30 3 of the rules framed under the act.
the appointment of the arbitrator was challenged by the president of the managing committee before the deputy companymissioner through a revision petition but the challenge failed.
in the meantime an application was made under r. 18 of the rules by seven shareholders of the bank to the registrar on april 4 1956.
companysequently on december 13 1955 the then registrar set aside the order appointing shri sogani as arbitrator and informed the parties that he would decide the dispute himself.
as however shri sogani was in ill health he expressed his inability to act as arbitrator.
companysequently the managing companymittee passed a resolution suspending the business of the bank subject to the approval of the registrar.
a reply to the numberice was given by the respondent and others in which they denied allegations of mismanagement etc.
634000 was detected.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal on a certificate granted by the judicial companymissioner ajmer.
dharam chand respondent number 1 hereinafter referred to as the respondent along with certain other respondents were members of the managing companymittee of the bank.
on investigation by the auditors embezzlement to the extent of about rs.
c. kasliwal advocate general for the state of rajasthan s. k. kapur and d. gupta for the appellant.
p. maheshwari for respondent number 9.
that companytention is that the registrar is in the position of a party and had expressed his opinion unequivocally against the respondent and other members of the committee in the numberice which he gave on february 26 1955 and therefore his constituting himself as a tribunal to decide the dispute under r. 18 was against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as a party companystituted himself the judge.
the brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
