TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in the hands of the parties interested in protracting them. The facts in the present case prove the apprehension. The petitioner is the Official Liquidator of a Co-operative Bank called Dadhich Sahakari Bank Limited. It was registered under the Act on September 17, 1980 and commenced work from November 3, 1980. Respondents Nos. 1 to 15 to the petition were the Directors of the Bank with Respondent No. 1 as the Chairman of the Board of Directors. For reasons which are as yet not known and to investigate which the present proceedings under Section 88 have been instituted the Bank functioned unsatisfactorily with the result that on July 7, 1982, i.e. within less than two years, the Board of Directors was superseded and an Administrator w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent No. 1 paid a sum of ₹ 100/- to each of the delinquents who were present and a sum of ₹ 200/- to the claimant bank, i.e., the petitioner as the costs of adjournment. While making this order, respondent No. 16 observed that the matter was part-heard and the witness was in the box and other Advocates were not willing to cross-examine the witness unless the cross-examination on behalf of respondent No. 1 was complete. He also stated that it was difficult to adjourn the hearing as there was no other work which could be transacted. 2. Against this order of June 7, 1986, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal to the Cooperative Appeal Court and the Appeal Court by its impugned order of July 25, 1986 set aside the order of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1908. It is contended that this provision gives the Inquiry Officer powers under the Civil Procedure Code only for summoning the persons and witnesses, and for producing documents, etc. Besides these powers there is no power given to the officer either under the Act or the Rules made under the Act. A. According to us, besides the aforesaid provisions, the provisions of Section 88 have also a bearing on the subject. But before we deal with them, we may point out that to read the provisions of Section 89 in the narrow manner in which respondent No. 1 wants us to do will lead to startling consequences. In the first instance, it will mean that the Inquiry Officer has no power even to grant adjournments of the hearing, for there is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiry Officer has the power not only to grant adjournment but also to grant costs of adjournment if necessary. 4. But besides Section 89, as stated earlier. Section 88 itself also confers powers on the Inquiry Officer to grant not only adjournments but also costs of adjournments. Section 88 gives power to the officer to conduct misfeasance proceedings against the persons concerned. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature in that if the charges framed are proved the persons concerned are saddled with a penal liability, though civil in nature. The Officer has therefore to conduct the inquiry as a full-fledged trial in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Hence he must have all powers necessary to conduct and complete the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
