Bond by MC members of Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

There is no relation between the errant member abiding by the court undertaking and the society office bearers filing an indemnity before the registrar of coop. societies. Both are independent issues. The office bearers of a society are duty bound and obligated to observe by the societies act, bye laws and the decisions of the society, irrespective of the fact as to whether they have submitted the indemnity or not.

Filing an indemnity is a procedural formality to ensure compliance and if this was skipped, the indemnity can be filed at any time with due penalty. Hence the society can (i) write back to the errant member pointing out the fact and compel him to go by the court undertaking. If  he still fails, the society should file a contempt petition against him. Separately the office bearers should file their indemnities with the registrar.

vasudevan

To,  MPS RAMANI :

1.  Filing of Bonds, is mandatory.  Bond has to be filed within 15 days of taking-over-charge of the managing committee (MC).

2.  IF THE   "MC"  has not filed the mandatory  "Indeminity Bond",  the MC is deemed to have vacated the posts of MC  and after that they do not have any powers left with them to file any case in any court or for that matter they themselves become   "ILLEGAL & UNAUTHORISED"  managing committee members and further become liable for various types of prosecution (including IPC for misrepresentation).

3.  The proceedings filed before the court by the  "illegal & unauthorised"  MC,  is "null & void"  ab-initio,  and does not have any legal sanctity.

4.  In fact the errant member can file for  "perjury" by the MC and claim for damages, from the MC & the society.

5.  Since now the member can prove that the whole court proceedings filed by the "illegal & unauthorised" MC,  is ab-initio (from the beginning)  null & void,  THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE MEMBER HAS NO LEGAL VALUE IN A COURT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS "NULL & VOID"

6.  Filing of the "indeminity bond",  " IS NOT " a procedural formality.  Rather it is  "mandatory" under the law and there is no such thing as late fee or penalty and neither can it be regularised, in any manner  WHAT-SO-EVER.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
 

I concur with the views of Mr. Agarwal, as regards the mandatory nature of the requirement of filing the indemnity bond and consequences of the failure - to its limited scope. The general rule of law being that all the provisions of an act to be read in harmony, would invite references to the provisions of Section 73 in conjunction the provisions of Section 77. Acts of societies etc., not to be invalidated by certain defects. Extract: No act of a society or a committee or any officer, done in good faith in pursuance of the business of the society shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of some defect subsequently discovered in the organisation of the society, or in the constitution of the committee, or in the appointment or election of an officer, or on the ground that such officer was disqualified for his office. 

It appears from Mr. Ramani's query that the failure to execute the indemnity bond ought to have been caused due to ignorance of this requirement. Hence the Registrar has the absolute power to decide on such matters including the impugned court proceedings.

This being q very crucial meeting deciding the fate of society's management erring on one or other provisions of the act, would appreciate my learned members of the forum guiding with more light, with relevant judgements. ( While I have cited good judgments re: Sec.73, invite such references for Sec.77

vasudevan

As Mr. V.Vasudevan as stated though the requirement of filing the indemnity bond is mandatory and not filed the Courts will take a lenient view if the order has been obtained in good faith. The society can file the bonds now praying for condoning the delay. 

1.  If  Bond has not been executed  "WITHIN"  15 days,  the managing committee (MC)  shall be deemed to have automatically vacated its posts.

2.  AFTER the posts of MC is vacated automatically,  NOW there remains NO provision for condonation of delay or Good Faith or any other legal nuisance that is being propogated.

3.   In WP no.457 of 2007,  (Gulab Khote vs State of Mah) the Mumbai HC Division Bench headed by B.H.Marlapalle, J  and S.R.Sathe, J in their judgment dated 27-11-2007, had held that IF bond is not executed within 15 days of assuming office,  THEN the MC is deemed to have vacated their posts and NO RELIEF WHATSOEVER IS APPLICABLE.

4.  IF  there was any scope of relief in the Act,  then section 73 could not have specifically mentioned  the  "15  days limitation period".

5.  The managing committee is  "ILLEGAL & UNAUTHORISED",    if Bond is not executed and all actions and decisions are also  "ILLEGAL &  UNAUTHORISED".

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

At the start of this debate I had very little knowledge of any law. But the contrary views expressed by many respondents have educated me. I am extremely thankful to all. The latest is from Mr.Hemant Agarwal.

 As regards the actions so far taken by the Managing Committee, Mr. Vasudevan has replied how they are valid. Mr. Agarwal says there is no scope for condonation of any delay on the part of the part of the Office Bearers.

 But I feel the case would fall under section 77A (d) which says “when a new committee has failed to enter office.” I think if the Registrar wants to condone the delay he can take action under Section 77A (i) which says

The Registrar may by order appoint (i) any member or members of the Committee to fill the vacancies;

 I am a Scientist and not a lawyer. But the situation made me desperate to dig into law books.

 I am eager to know whether I am right from the learned members of the Forum.

Mr. Ramani, I am glad that the forum could  guide you with remedies. While a particular provision may not  provide remedy for all failures, law in essence provides succour to every un-intended omissions or commissions. As a lawman, i endeavour to provide a solution. Hence  - Please represent the matter before the Registrar. Even if the bond is not accepted, the acts as done in good faith are valid and no court would render them invalid. In case the Regista does not accept the bond, hold a fresh election and reconsitute the society. Best Wishes, vasudevan 

Yes. I agree with Mr. V.Vasudevan. As suggested you approach the Registrar and get the matter solved. Thus the best way is approach the Registrar immediately and seek his advice before filing of any petitions.