Yes Bank cites Banking Regulation Act which says that ‘every appointment duly made shall be final and not called into question in any court
Yes Bank Ltd on Wednesday told the Bombay high court that Madhu Kapur’s suit against the appointment of the bank’s board of directors cannot be accepted under the banking regulation law.
Lawyer Ravi Kadam, appearing on behalf of the bank, cited section 10 (A) (6) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which says that “every appointment, removal or reconstitution duly made and every election duly held under this sections shall be final and shall not be called into question in any court.”
“This court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit because the respondent is a bank governed by Banking Regulation Act just like companies are governed by the Companies Act,” Kadam said, citing some instances when corporate cases were not heard in the civil court. “(I am sure) this civil court in its wisdom will not sit over the jurisdiction of this case,” Kadam said.
Kadam’s argument was contested by Madhu Kapur’s counsel J.P. Sen, who protested that the maintainability of the suit should have been contested by the bank earlier before the arguments started and not after four days of arguments.
Madhu Kapur and her family have taken Rana Kapoor and Yes Bank to court demanding the right to nominate a director on the bank’s board citing the articles of association of the bank which was founded by her late husband Ashok Kapur. Rana Kapoor is also Madhu Kapur’s brother-in-law, having married her sister Bindu.
The Madhu Kapur group has also challenged the appointment of Yes Bank independent directors Diwan Arun Nanda, M.R. Srinivasan, Ravish Chopra and newly appointed wholetime executive directors Rajat Monga, Sanjay Palve and Pralay Mondal because they have not been appointed with the mutual consent of both the promoters.
The hearing will continue on Thursday.
Yes Bank Ltd on Wednesday told the Bombay high court that Madhu Kapur’s suit against the appointment of the bank’s board of directors cannot be accepted under the banking regulation law.
Lawyer Ravi Kadam, appearing on behalf of the bank, cited section 10 (A) (6) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which says that “every appointment, removal or reconstitution duly made and every election duly held under this sections shall be final and shall not be called into question in any court.”
“This court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit because the respondent is a bank governed by Banking Regulation Act just like companies are governed by the Companies Act,” Kadam said, citing some instances when corporate cases were not heard in the civil court. “(I am sure) this civil court in its wisdom will not sit over the jurisdiction of this case,” Kadam said.
Kadam’s argument was contested by Madhu Kapur’s counsel J.P. Sen, who protested that the maintainability of the suit should have been contested by the bank earlier before the arguments started and not after four days of arguments.
Madhu Kapur and her family have taken Rana Kapoor and Yes Bank to court demanding the right to nominate a director on the bank’s board citing the articles of association of the bank which was founded by her late husband Ashok Kapur. Rana Kapoor is also Madhu Kapur’s brother-in-law, having married her sister Bindu.
The Madhu Kapur group has also challenged the appointment of Yes Bank independent directors Diwan Arun Nanda, M.R. Srinivasan, Ravish Chopra and newly appointed wholetime executive directors Rajat Monga, Sanjay Palve and Pralay Mondal because they have not been appointed with the mutual consent of both the promoters.
The hearing will continue on Thursday.
No comments:
Post a Comment