A communique from Mr. H. C. Naresh, Swimming Coach of SJBHS from 1978 to 2009
Ash Rajan (Class of 1976) addressed the Josephite community on the Macro-Economic Impact of Covid-19 & Managing Your Financial Wellness, on the 23rd of May, 2020 at 8.30am PST. The JAANA team has made it all available on public podcast channels:
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jaana-connect/id1513087532
We thank you for your generosity and appeal to your love and compassion to continue donating and sharing with those less fortunate and in dire need.
Link to the JAANA Speaker Series on Covid-19 held on March 28, 2020 with Dr. Kartik Chandran (’89) and Dr. Ragavendra Baliga (’75).
The meeting was called to order by the President Ian Lewis as the quorum requirement had been met. On the dais were (left to right) Secretary Rajeev Shenoy, President Ian Lewis and Principal Fr. Sunil Fernandes.
MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING
OF THE OLD BOYS’ ASSOCIATION
OF ST. JOSEPH’S BOYS’ HIGH SCHOOL, BANGALORE
HELD ON SUNDAY, 1
st DECEMBER 2019
AT THE XAVIER AUDITORIUM, SJBHS
The meeting was called to order by the President Ian Lewis as the quorum requirement had been met. On
the dais were (left to right) Secretary Rajeev Shenoy, President Ian Lewis and Principal Fr. Sunil Fernandes.
Principal Fr. Sunil led the House in an opening prayer.
President Ian Lewis addressed the gathering, “Welcome Old Boys. Welcome Father Principal.
Welcome to this EGM. I am grateful for your presence today. Before we begin, I would like to say a
few words. The Articles of Association (AOA), that we will consider today, have come about after a
great deal of hard work by the Drafting Committee, which was put together by Jimmy Anklesaria,
Irfan Razack and Ian Faria. They are responsible for the committee’s existence and I’m grateful that
they have made it happen. Without Jimmy Anklesaria’s push, we would not even have gone down
this road, so we are indeed grateful to him. Ian has gone much further and captained the committee.
He has been our gracious host for the past 15 months, he’s extended every facility to us and we have
shamelessly taken advantage of him, his office and everything he has given us. Ian, thank you. I must
tell you the deliberations, on the committee, have been lively at best. With different perspectives
being brought to bear, Ian has kept us focussed and united in a lively manner. Throughout the last
15 months that we have been on the committee, I’ve not seen a single instance where somebody
lost respect for the other person on the committee. Johnny J. Nereyeth has been the architect of the
committee. He has drafted and re-drafted the Mem-Arts. He has tirelessly researched so many
alumni associations and pulled several all-nighters to get this together. He gave every single person
on the drafting committee a tremendous amount of homework reading but he must have done
some 200 manhours in conferences and about 3 times of that in his own homework. Johnny, thank
you. Ian Faria and Johnny have practically lived and breathed this document. They have also fought
and reconciled with each other multiple times; today, the reconciliation is yet to happen but it is
always done keeping in mind the interest of St. Joseph’s and the OBA. These two are responsible for
the draft you see before you today. For their dedication and effort, I’m indeed grateful. Others in the
drafting committee have contributed their experience and world-view. Piklu has recently retired
from the civil services and now serves in the Telecom Appellate Tribunal. Hemchandra Basappa, a
great friend of the under-privileged; he had the best intelligence of what was happening outside the
committee although he is not on any social media. Krish, Gurmeet, Nadeem, Zaki and Franklin – Past
Presidents, have all led the OBA for many years together. They all run their own businesses and have
brought their own perspectives to the OBA. Siddharth Raja, the lights shine off him and Dhanya,
both practising lawyers. Llewellyn Rego who has been of great help to us. Llewellyn Rego came and
volunteered to join us on the committee for which I am indeed grateful. Thank you very much. I
don’t expect you all to agree with everything that this drafting committee proposes before you
today but we all owe them a debt of gratitude for their effort. Please give them all a big hand.”
[Ian Faria in turn informed the House that Ian Lewis was also part of the meetings and WhatsApp
groups of the drafting committee and has been of tremendous help with his legal knowledge. He
also mentioned that it is great that Ian is chairing this EGM.]
“You have all read the Mem-Arts and noticed that there are a few amendments to the Mem-Arts.
The heart and soul of the original Articles and the Memoranda have been kept intact. The changes
that have been made are to the Managing Committee, its election and functioning, the
categorization of the Old Boys’ donations and the Governance Committee. It’s here that I would like
to pause for a moment and say that at the end of this meeting, I’d like as many of you who are
interested to go to the OBA Office and Aditya Kaura, who is our Joint Treasurer this year, will walk
you through the accounts in brief and give you an overall idea of what is happening at the OBA and
what is happening with our money. To get back to this meeting, most edits to the Mem-Arts are of
minor consequence or just attempts to get consistency in the Articles or to achieve some elegance of
drafting. You may follow each Article from the Mem-Arts from the printed books or the projections.
After each Memorandum or Article, I will seek your approval before moving on to the next. There
are two microphones with Charlie (Charles Raj) and Sparrow (Praveen Rodrigues). I will take two
questions at a time or if there are two interventions. Pease keep your interventions brief for a
minute or so. Johnny will address your interventions on technical or accounting matters. Ian Faria
will address interventions on most other matters.”
“Without further ado, let me begin on a point of order. The previous draft of the Mem-Arts was
circulated in the OBA Annual Report of 2018-2019. However, that meeting has been adjourned to
“The previous Mem-Arts have been amended with some minor alterations after we received some
interventions from well-wishers and other Old Boys. I would like to take the permission of this
General Body to consider the Mem-Arts that were circulated and what you have with you today in
place of the previous Mem-Arts that were circulated along with the Annual Report of 2018-2019.
Can I have a proposer and seconder for this?”
Llewellyn Rego proposed and Yeshwant Gurjer seconded the same and was carried by the General
“The proposal is to examine and perhaps adopt the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the
OBA which the Secretary Rajeev published on November 12th, 2019 in the booklets before you. I take
it as carried. Johnny and Ian please come forward. Please turn to Appendix B in the booklets you
have before you. Appendix A says Old Boys’ Association of St. Joseph’s Boys High School, this is the
updated and revised Memorandum and Articles of Association. You will find that the Appendix A of
Old Boys’ Association of St. Joseph’s Boys High School Articles of Association – this is what we
propose to bring into force in this meeting. It would be more productive to turn to Appendix B,
which has the comparison of the existing, the proposed and the explanatory notes. In the
Memorandum of Association (MoA), we have proposed an additional paragraph as a preface to the
Mem-Arts and we have also changed the serial number 2 which is a preamble to the Mem-Arts to
give the OBA charter some historical background. You will find that the information that is taken at
serial number 2 has been sourced from Chris Rego’s book, Faith and Toil. At serial number 3, there is
a brief history and the evolution of the School and the OBA as per the College and School annuals.
May I take serial numbers 1, 2 and 3 as adopted?”
Sunil Pichamuthu (batch of 1995) – “In Appendix A it says that the school has been under the
management of the Bangalore Jesuit Educational Society (BJES) since 1937 while in Appendix B it
says that it is under the management of the Society of Jesus. So which is the correct Appendix for
Llewellyn Rego (batch of 1967 – Senior Cambridge batch) – “Appendix A is the overall or composite
proposal for amendment to the MoA. In the run-up under the preamble indicates that since 1937
the School has been under the management of the BJES. Now this is a variation from what was
indicated earlier. BJES came into existence in 1973 so technically this line is factually incorrect and it
needs to be deleted from your proposal. If you are going by the proposed correction then the
correction will stand.”
President stated that the Appendix B mentions the proposal as the School is under the management
of the Society of Jesus. “Serial number 3 is the brief history and evolution of the school. May I take
serial numbers 1, 2 and 3 as adopted?”
Proposed SERIAL NUMBERS 1, 2 AND 3 were unanimously adopted by the House.
President turned to serial number 4 – “The insertion of the word ‘NOW’ in the line – an institution
now administered by the BJES. May I take serial number 4 as adopted?
Proposed SERIAL NUMBER 4 was unanimously adopted by the House.
President stated that serial numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been retained as-is and asked if the same
could be adopted?
Hemchandra Basappa (batch of 1969) stated that in serial number 6 the aims and objectives have
been left out as there is no more a relationship between the School and OBA activities.
John Nereyeth (batch of 1974) said Hemchandra’s query is with reference to a draft that we worked
on in 1999 and we had a lot of discussions and at that time we decided to retain the old objectives in
the Memorandum which has been there since 1919, because the Memorandum simply stated as it is
now, covers all the point-wise objectives, those point-wise objectives have never really been
adopted by the OBA. That was in a draft that somehow got printed into the final MoA. In fact, I think
it’s the OBA of the Indian High School that was started in 1930 and it was brought up in the year
1999 or 2000 if we should adopt the same thing and it was agreed that we would stick to whatever
we had and to what exists in our current objectives, is given under serial number 6 and that we
haven’t changed at all.
Hemchandra again stated that he was referring to what was on the website. He said that the present
aims and objectives have no relationship with the school but only related to the Old Boys.
Johnny again stated that what was on the website was not from the MoA adopted by the AGM in
the year 2000. He said that they had to go by what they had on record because what was put on the
website was a proposed MoA and AoA which was never adopted.
Ian Faria clarified by saying, “It says in the first line itself ‘the OBA has been formed to bring into
closer union and friendship, all former pupils of St. Joseph’s Boys’ High School, and perpetuate their
interest and connection with their Alma Mater.’ So that is actually a very broad-based clause…and
the manner in which the stated objectives have been achieved shall be determined by the members
from time to time.’ So there is a lot of scope for us to do all of those objectives as we are not
restricted by this. Actually, we are empowered by this and this is a large vista that we can use. It is to
do with the school and if you look at the rest of the things, you will know better than most people
here that it is to foster the relationship with the School and to make sure that the School benefits.
That’s our objective plus camaraderie between Old Boys. All that is covered in this simple wording.
We don’t have to go point by point but if you want perhaps it could be introduced in the by-laws
with the permission of the Chair.”
Llewellyn Rego (batch of 1967) informed the House that they had submitted a counter proposal to
the Secretary but the same has not been taken into account or circulated to the body. He stated that
they had highlighted the areas which are inadequate and deficient and also provided for an
arrangement whereby they could formally communicate with the BJES wherever it is legally possible.
Ian Faria stated that this was brought to the notice but last minute changes were getting difficult to
handle all at once so he suggested Llewellyn Rego to give a gist of his proposal at the EGM so it could
be taken into consideration.
Llewellyn Rego (batch of 1967): said, “In essence, I’m with Ian Faria on these issues because it is an
elaborate document running into several pages and if we were to debate each and every rule that
we are seeking to propose, delete or modify, it could keep us here for days. I have spent a lot of time
on this particular issue, and I have summarized what my appreciation of the document that was
initially placed before the General Body for consideration was. I had initially pointed out that there
was a particular rule there which said any Old Boy being prosecuted would be given membership
after completing his prison term. These were issues that really hurt me very much because students
here are not geared up to go to jail and come back and even if it was so it is not for us to highlight it
in an official document relating to our association. So I suggested we removed that. Now, here the
main difficulty is that it is true that we are under the grace and aegis of the BJES which started in the
year 1973. I have also produced, along with the counter proposal draft that we gave them, the
registration certificate of the BJES. Now the preamble basically, according to me , is a document that
explains the rationale with which the society has been formed, not a historical perspective which
needs to be put in a document. What is it that we are trying to do with this document? That is the
preamble. Now, unfortunately for years there has not been very much to do with the constitution of
the association because it was a very nominal document which extended to only 2 or 3 pages and we
have survived with that document for 100 years without seeing any need for any amendment in any
area. I was in the committee in the late sixties and Secretary in the seventies and counsel for the
BJES. What I felt was that the aims and objectives should be specified so I have said that ‘the aims
and objectives of the association shall be to bring into closer union and friendship all alumni of the
educational institution formerly known and called St. Joseph’s College later known as St. Joseph’s
European High School and currently known as St. Joseph’s Boys’ High School and to perpetuate the
interest and connection with the Alma Mater and additionally to help carry out improvements,
funds, scholarships and execute any other beneficial acts therein and promote any other objective to
general interest and usefulness which may be decided upon from time to time with a general body
of members. To endeavour, to promote a strong bonding in love, camaraderie and fellowship
amongst members. To ensure that they are men and women for others and that they will function as
partners in the Jesuit effort of forming human beings grown to their full potential, freed from
bondage and who would surrender themselves to the service of others. To adopt and perpetuate as
its motto, the adage To give and not to count the cost. To promote and give effect to wherever
legally possible the objectives of the society known and called BJES. To invite and accept donations,
subscriptions, gifts and legacies with or without conditions for the ultimate benefit of the
association. To assist, subscribe or cooperate with any other public body whose objectives are
similar to those of the association and whose objectives shall be achieved without involving any
activity for profit. To acquire, hold or dispose in any manner whatsoever fit immovable property or
properties. I have added this due to an issue that happened in 1977. This document may have to go
to many authorities in the future for interpretation. We cannot leave these interpretations which
can be done only in an AGM here or EGM. If the authorities view this in a different way, we could
land in trouble with their interpretations. Therefore, I suggested that we quantify, qualify and
distinctly explain what our aims and objectives are. Therefore, I set out all these aims and objections
to meet future difficulties than rather leave it to debate and subjective consideration. Therefore, in
counter I would propose that, what we have suggested in these 6 specific instances which will also
enable us to interact with the BJES and enable us to acquire immovable properties if we want, to be
adopted as the aims and objectives of the association.”
President asked if the serial number 6 could be adopted as is with no changes from the previous
aims and objectives as they have had it for many years.
Serial No. 6 was adopted by the House by voice vote.
SERIAL NUMBER 7 was adopted by the House by voice vote.
President stated that serial number 8 which deals with property also be adopted as suggested by the
Fathers at the Jesuit Nivas, “the movable property of the OBA shall be held in the name of the
Principal of St. Joseph’s Boys High School, Bangalore. Any immovable property shall be held in the
name of the BJES.”
Lennold D’Almeida (batch of 1994) asked if the movable property includes digital property. President
confirmed that it does.
Shubendu Ghosh (batch of 1969) wanted to address one of the concerns of Llewellyn. He said that
the BJES is a registered society under the Karnataka Societies Act and the BJES has, in good faith,
asked us to run the OBA which we have been doing diligently. He also stated that the paper puts
certain things down which shows possible diligence and transparency but buying property can be
done only once the OBA becomes a society by ourselves. Personally, I think that we should continue
running the show for the BJES as we have been doing all these years.
Llewellyn Rego: “President, the issue of the property being held in the name of the principal of St.
Joseph’s Boys High School was objected to us technically on the ground. Personally, I have no
objections to anybody holding the property of the association of a passage of some of these
amendments which don’t really detract from our basic structure. The issue here is in view of what
has been suggested in item 5 of the AoA, it nowhere in any aims or objectives indicates that you
would have immovable property or you were authorized to hold immovable property, other than in
this document. To expand that idea and to ensure than it was enforceable I provided in the aims and
objectives for the OBA to be in a position to buy property because just in case, with no offence to
anyone, we were asked to leave from here then where do we go? If we can buy immovable
property, we can set up our own establishment there if the need for it arises. Now to answer
Shubendu’s query, the BJES has not been managing the OBA since inception because the BJES was
formed in 1973 and the OBA is a hundred years old and have been following a corporate structure.
Every year we have an AGM where minutes of the last year are read out, with the President’s report
and accounts presentation, all of which are passed by the OBA not by the BJES. How do you explain
that? We have been functioning as a corporate structure all these years and now the question arises
as why we need to change that. This particular provision in item 5 conflicts with several other
provisions in the guiding principles in the AOA. (Item 5.1.2) – According to this, if the bank accounts
are in the name of the association, how does it come in the name of the Principal? (Rule 2.6) –
According to this, and item 3, if an honorary member is the Principal of the school and cannot
actively participate in the AGM/EGM, then how can he as a Treasurer present or clarify the
accounts? Even the financial plans proposed say that your money shall be in the name of the
association. So when this is the question, who is to answer these questions on accounts? The
Treasurer has no authority to speak, he cannot participate in the general meeting. I, therefore,
suggested that we create a board of trustees where we would have the BJES in large presence, 6
members from there and 9 members from the general body here so that we can keep control of our
monies and at the same time pay deference to the BJES. That is why in our proposal we have come
out with a board of trustees and also under the Karnataka Societies Act, a board of trustees is a body
that is countenanced and is given statutory recognition to and with a board of trustees with our
members as well as the BJES we are hand in hand with them. If they have anything to speak on
behalf of the BJES, that is the conduit for us. At the same time we can simultaneously explain our
position and keep control of our monies. The other issue is how can the BJES be accounting for our
monies? They may have been doing it all these years but is it the right thing to do? Today if we are
correcting our constitutional document then we should correct these areas of awareness and show
that we don’t have any difficulties arising as a result of this. So therefore I’ve pointed out the issue
with regard to these conflicts with other provisions of the AoA. The rules of the Karnataka Societies
Act are not documented here but have to be followed by all means. Rest is up to you.”
President thanked Llewellyn Rego for making it short and reminded everyone that for 100 years they
have been founded by the Jesuit Fathers and have been a part of the school. Also, it is true that in
the Karnataka Education Act only a PTA committee is mandated but an alumni association is not
mandated. However, the school has been forward thinking and has had a vigorous alumni
association for all these years. He reiterated the question by Llewellyn Rego, “Do we wish to
separate from the school or do we want to remain a part of the school?”
Sunil Rasquinha (batch of 1995) wanted to clarify if the OBA existed legally in any form or is a ghost
organization. He said that if they are only an association with no legal rights, they cannot own
anything. But as the OBA has been a part of the school and existed in trust with the Fathers for so
many years without having the Jesuits disrupt anything, he thinks that it would be wrong to just try
and separate from the BJES in order to become a body by itself.
President confirmed that the OBA is not registered and not an association of persons or a trust. He
confirmed that the OBA is a virtual organization. He repeated his question to the House.
Llewellyn Rego wanted to clarify that he did not propose to abandon or separate from the BJES in
anyway. He suggested having a board of trustees with people from the BJES and the OBA on it so
that the OBA is a stronger body.
By voice vote, the House unanimously decided to continue being a part of the school.
By voice vote, the House unanimously decided to adopt serial number 8 which deals with
property, as “the movable property of the OBA shall be held in the name of the Principal of St.
Joseph’s Boys High School, Bangalore. Any immovable property if acquired shall be held in the
name of the BJES.”
President thanked the House and referred to serial number 9 which talks about dissolution which
has a minor punctuation change.
Llewellyn Rego (1967) suggested that on dissolution, the funds be transferred to the BJES instead of
being transferred to the School.
A. G. Krishnaswamy (batch of 1972) agreed with Llewellyn that on dissolution, the funds be
transferred to BJES and in turn be transferred to the School.
Vasanth Fernandes (batch of 1985) proposed that the change be from St. Joseph’s Boys’ High School
Aditya Kaura (batch of 1991) stated that even today, all the funds and accounts are already in the
name of the BJES so the funds should be transferred to the school as that is the other entity.
Girsh Punja (batch of 1975) asked if the St. Joseph’s Boys’ High School was the only institution under
the BJES. If no, then if the OBA is dissolved, he felt that the money should go to St. Joseph’s Boys’
High School and not to the BJES as the OBA was part of St. Joseph’s Boys’ High School and not any
other institution under the BJES.
The President proposed serial number 9 as follows, “Dissolution upon winding up or dissolution of
the OBA, the entire funds and other property of the association shall be given/transferred to the
BJES, to be utilized for the benefit of the School.”
By voice vote, the House unanimously adopted SERIAL NUMBER 9.
President stated that Serial number 10 has been taken from the General Clauses Act. He said he
received a communication from the UK chapter, whose President is Akhila Jayaram, who has asked
the House to be inclusive of all genders in their language rules. President stated that point 1.1
elaborates GENDER as inclusive of all genders, masculine and feminine.
Llewellyn Rego proposed that the word ‘interpretation’ be changed to ‘GLOSSARY’. The same was
seconded by Siddharth Raja thereby passing SERIAL NUMBER 10 by voice vote.
By voice vote, the House unanimously adopted SERIAL NUMBER 10.
President referred to serial number 11 – Membership of the association – Eligibility – the addition
being at (c) – ‘the minimum age to be admitted as a member of the OBA is 15 years’. He said that the
thinking is that even if you have studied for 6 months in the school you can become a member of the
OBA. He said that as the school presently ran from LKG to 12th Std. and if a child has left the school in
th std, he would technically not be denied membership and he would get membership ahead of his
class as the typical age of graduation was 15 years. He said that Llewellyn Rego suggested the age be
changed to the legal age of 18 instead. He asked the body if they would adopt the change.
Llewellyn Rego said that technically it would be incorrect to say 15 years but could include the clause
‘represented by his guardian’ as a minor cannot get into any contract. He said that there are duties,
liabilities and rights of a member so it cannot be denied that the member has no rights.
Sunil Rasquinha stated that as the OBA is a virtual organization, it does not enter into any contract
with the members but only allows them to be members of the association.
Nadeem Ahmed (batch of 1970) asked what happens to the students to pass 10th Std. if the age
increases to 18 years.
Piklu said that he understands where Llewellyn Rego is going with this, because if somebody comes
in at 15 years, at 16 he becomes an MC Member and signs an agreement, that document will be
Siddharth Raja (batch of 1990) suggests the use of the clause ‘subject to applicable law’ so that in
certain situations, a call can be taken accordingly.
Vasanth Fernandes (batch of 1985) said that when one is less than 18 years, they are voting for
dissolution and many other things so he suggested mentioning that certain obligations cannot be
given to them until one is 18 years of age.
Santosh Naidu also asked the same as Nadeem and further questioned how the fees would be
Dr C. S. Rajan (batch of 1969) suggested that from 15 years the students can become associate
members until they are eligible to stand for election and other things at the age of 18.
Dr. Bryan Nobbay felt that students could join at the age of 15 and then at the age of 18 have full
benefits of being a member.
Franklin Antonat (batch of 1988) inquired if it will be an automatic transition from associate member
to full member without having to re-register them.
Ian Faria agreed that what Llewellyn Rego and Siddharth Raja said were bang on target legally but
suggested that the proposal remain simple as the OBA is not a legal entity so when there is an issue,
it can be tackled with good sense.
Vasanth Fernandes reiterated his point.
President read the proposed as follows, “the minimum age to be admitted as a member of the OBA
is 15 years, and the minimum age to be admitted to the MC is 18 years.”
The House adopted SERIAL NUMBER 11, by voice vote, the point as is subject to the addition ‘and
the minimum age to be admitted to the MC is 18 years.’
President referred to serial number 12 and 13 which have no changes except for the numbering.
The House adopted SERIAL NUMBER 12 and 13 as passed unanimously.
President referred to serial number 14 which involves the deletion of point 2 under it and thanked
Llewellyn Rego for pointing it out.
The House adopted SERIAL NUMBER 14 unanimously.
President referred to serial number 15 in which the Articles have been renumbered and the fees
have been revised. He read that Patron Membership has been increased from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs
Jayant Kapadia (batch of 1961) suggested that some token be given to Patron Members in case of
increase in the membership fees.
President mentioned that the goodness of being a part of the OBA is that a recent graduate can go
to someone who has graduated 30 years ago and have a conversation with him. He also said he was
against the distinction and badges being given to Old Boys whether they have been generous to the
OBA or not because if one has decided to become a Patron Member, it was because of the
generosity of their wallets and goodness of their hearts.
Bryan Nobbay inquired why the graduating member fees were mentioned as Rs. 500/- when they
are actually supposed to pay Rs. 1000/-.
President clarified that it was changed with the thinking that at some point of time the OBA would
have to pay that fee on behalf of the Jesuit Fathers or teacher who was to come into the school. He
inquired if the House wanted the fees to be mentioned as Rs. 1,000/-. He read out the fees for all as
follows, “Members of the Clergy – no fee. Graduating students – Rs. 500/-. Others – Rs. 1,000/-.
Patron members – Rs. 10,000/-
Biju John (batch of 1995) wanted to know who the ‘others’ were.
President clarified that on previous occasions there were retired teachers who have been
Secretaries of the OBA and also honoured a couple of teaching staff with honorary membership. So
‘others’ were people who did not graduate from St. Joseph’s Boys’ High School.
Vishwas Basavaraj (batch of 1995) wanted to know why there was an existence of patron
membership at all. Why the discrimination when whoever wants to contribute can contribute
President clarified that this was not a discrimination that is why he was against having badges and
distinctions for them. He confirmed that this was an intelligent way of raising funds for the OBA.
Ian Faria included that if someone wanted to contribute more, then no one should stop him and that
a differently named membership wouldn’t make a difference.
Llewellyn Rego said that he was present when the resolution regarding patron membership was
passed in the general body meeting. He also mentioned that this was proposed by Jimmy Anklesaria
and it had a rider with it which said, ‘the patron was entitled to free breakfast and free lunch on OBA
day.’ He also said that he felt it was unsound because it felt like an investment for which they were
getting a benefit in return.
A. G. Krishnaswamy (batch of 1972) agreed that he was also against the extra benefits given to the
patron members but whenever he brought it up at the AGMs, it was shot down so only the general
body could change or retain this.
Siddharth Raja (batch of 1990) suggested that the MC could make a decision on the increase from
time to time.
President repeated and inquired if the serial number 15 could be adopted as follows, “Members of
the Clergy – no fee. Graduating students – Rs. 500/-. Others – Rs. 1000/-. Patron members – Rs.
The SERIAL NUMBER 15 was adopted by the House unanimously.
President referred to serial number 16 which said, “The MC may invite any person to become an
honorary member of the OBA, if a person would be able to guide and assist in the furtherance of the
objectives of the association. Such a membership may be for a specified period.” The last line was
deleted and read as “The MC cannot invite people to become honorary members of the OBA.”
Narendra Baliga (Batch of 1978) suggested that the Rector be made an Honorary Member.
The House adopted SERIAL NUMBER 16 unanimously.
President referred to serial number 17 which has no changes except for the numbering.
The House adopted SERIAL NUMBER 17 as passed unanimously.
President referred to serial number 18 which has no changes except for the numbering and rearrangement of the clause.
The House adopted SERIAL NUMBER 18 as passed unanimously.
President referred to serial number 19 where the official and financial year have not changed.
The House adopted SERIAL NUMBER 19 as passed unanimously.
President referred to serial number 20 ‘funds and income arising from investments’ point number
5.4 ‘corpus funds’. He said that there will be a change in the nomenclature where the word ‘corpus’
will be changed. He mentioned that as per the auditor of the BJES, the OBA is not a registered body
or corporate body and therefore cannot use the word ‘corpus’ but probably ‘end use specific /nonspecific fund’. He transferred the microphone to Ian and Johnny.
Ian Faria mentioned that there was a lot of confusion with the accounts as past committees have
transferred money when required but with no proper records.
Johnny said that the accounts have been maintained since 1919 but the procedures were not
followed correctly. He said each fund has its own profit/ loss and income/expenditure accounts but
recently we have several different kinds of funds therefore the funds of the organization have been
split into 4 parts, namely
• Endowment Fund (given by a member or a group of members), the interest for which has to
be accounted for separately.
• Funds given for a Specific Purpose like hockey fund, library fund, etc.
• Operating Fund which is the general funds which will have to be used for operations.
• Reserve Fund which consists of the extra funds that do not fit into any of the above
categories but can be put into any of these categories.
Sunil Pichamuthu (batch of 1995) mentioned that all the accounts are in the name of the BJES but in
the guiding principles 5.1.2.a it is said that the investments are to be kept in the bank accounts in the
name of the association so he suggested that it be corrected to read as the BJES instead of the
Aditya Kaura (batch of 1991) mentioned that in South Indian Bank, the BJES holds a very large
account and has another sub-account for St. Joseph’s Boys’ High School A/c OBA (SJBHS OBA
Account) and all the funds go into that account.
Sanjay Balan (batch of 1989), with regards to point 5.1.2c, said there was a grammatical error and
proposed a change in the wordings in order to state the rule clearly – ‘shall formulate’ instead of
‘was’. This was seconded by Lennold D’Almeida (batch of 1994).
President read out as follows, “All funds of the association, other than fixed asset and
administration funds should be invested in such financial investments as are permitted for the BJES
or kept in bank accounts in the name of the BJES account SJBHS OBA.” He also asked if he could
take 5.1.2 as adopted.
The House adopted point 5.1.2 unanimously.
Llewellyn Rego (batch of 1967) said that 5.3.1 comprises funds of the association and perhaps the
word ‘association’ has to be changed to account SJBHS OBA.
President asked the House if the OBA wanted to mingle their funds with the BJES or keep it separate
as that of an association so as to ensure the autonomy of management as they have permitted us all
Llewellyn Rego said that if they had to go by the issue, that they are to pass on dissolution, the funds
to the BJES, then they are the funds of the OBA so in such a situation the language as it is remains.
Johnny Nereyeth clarified that this was not when used in this context but means the liabilities side of
the balance sheet, so the OBA has its own funds and then the funds that are in the bank account. So,
he said when they classify the liabilities side of the balance sheet, they divide it into the
shareholders’ funds, funds contributed by outsiders, member or group funds for a specific purpose
and then there is another amount that the MC cannot touch without the approval of the general
body. This does not talk about the physical monies that the association has. He said this was the
liabilities side of the balance sheet. So the ownership of the liabilities side of the balance sheet is just
a theoretical separation for accounting purposes.
President inquired if the House could take 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 as adopted.
The House adopted points 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 under SERIAL NUMBER 20 unanimously subject to the
nomenclature of the word ‘corpus funds’.
President referred to point number 5.4 with regards to corpus funds.
George Ollapally (batch of 1968) suggested with regard to the minimum corpus of 5 lakh, that there
should be a timeline defined and that there should be a distinction between a pledge to set up a
corpus and the actual corpus because not everyone will give the full amount at once, some may
want to spread it out.
Johnny mentioned that the MC can give the donor time or help them out if the AGM agrees.
Zaki Khaleeli (batch of 1973) said that he agreed that a time frame should be set for making
contributions especially if it was beyond a certain value, because if a member takes 10 years to
contribute 10 lakh, then there would be a depreciation in money value in the 10 years.
Aditya Kaura (batch of 1991) inquired why there were such high values like Rs. 50 lakh in capital
funds as there wasn’t much use for it.
Johnny confirmed that those amounts were just placeholders while the final amount would be
mentioned after the approval at the AGM. He also confirmed that the MC is allowed to reduce the
capital fund amount if they see fit.
President said, “the effort, to maintain and give accounts for a scholarship, is a lot. So, the amount
has been increased from 2 lakh and eventually come to 5 lakh. So if you can make up a fund of 5 lakh
which will generate Rs. 35,000 per annum for your scholarship, we are able to fund students for
their fees accordingly. As time passes and education gets costlier, this amount may have to increase
but if someone wants to make a donation for a smaller amount, we would be glad to accept it. There
are some funds which do not have an end use specified to them such as for mid-day meals,
scholarships, teachers’ insurance and sports.
Llewellyn Rego (batch of 1967) said considering the financial planning that the OBA has set up in an
optimal way, which he finds no fault with, there are people who donate to satisfy their own sense of
charity and there was a very strong issue for the widow’s mite. He suggested including a clause that
said in the event of any endowment made by any person or persons, the MC should consider it for
matters outside the scholarship too.
President confirmed that the OBA does not exist for anything outside of the school or for the Old
Boys. He also mentioned that all the money received has to be applied for the school only.
Llewellyn Rego mentioned that in 1976 the OBA has presented an Old Boy with a wheelchair
because his legs had been amputated.
President said that the OBA is trying to close all avenues where any sums of money may be used for
anything except the school. He also stated that the OBA is trying to bind itself to the school in every
possible manner. He stated that the money that is being collected from Old Boys across the world is
being collected from them with the assurance that it will be used for the school only. The generosity
of Josephites is legendary but it does not mean that if an appeal is made Josephites will not respond,
it means that the Old Boys will be doing it as a private and voluntary contribution without the OBA
being involved as an association.
Hemchandra inquired why the funds were only for the school as there is another fund that is going
to be suggested in the near future where a part of the Fr. Claude D’Souza scholarship fund should be
kept aside for an annual lecture which will speak about what issues and values he stood for. He said
that this would be with the students of the college and maybe the higher secondary students from
the school. He also inquired what would happen if someone was unable to raise sufficient funds
after 10 years.
President mentioned that the Class of 1968 has been very generous this year where they have
collected a sum of Rs. 25 lakh to be donated to the OBA and asked the OBA to keep this fund in a 6
month deposit until they identify the end use of it. The President then said that they had not gotten
a response from the class and therefore suggested to them that the returns from this money be
used for mid-day meals but they were taken aback. In a meeting with Father, President said that the
class of 1968 sought out time till today to let the OBA know how the money is to be applied as they
had 4 things in mind, namely to honour students, to have a lecture series in the name of Fr. Claude,
for mid-day meals and to honour certain teachers. President also stated that he communicated to
the attendees (Shailendra Gupta, Avijit and Hemchandra) that he was okay with any application
except for number 2 (lecture series) because if there is lecture series, it has to be done for the
benefit of the school in coordination with the school and not some other college because practically
speaking students are not going to be invited to witness a lecture in some other place. Secondly, he
said that interest rates on bank deposits are changing at a minimal value, it has increased only from
6 to 7 per cent in the past 30 years, therefore the OBA has huge requirements for money in order to
support 100 odd students. He stated that it takes a great deal of time and efforts to manage funds
and also the value of the Rupee is decreasing so the value of the 10 lakh or 20 lakh or 1 crore that is
given to the OBA today, will not be the same 25 years from now so there is a possibility that we will
get back to the batch and ask to top up the amount failing which it will be merged with another
fund. If the Batch can top it up it will be continued and if not, it will be merged with some other
fund. The OBA cannot manage perpetuities.
Johnny stated that if one wants to organize a lecture series, they should be talking to the BJES
directly on that aspect. With regards to the topping up of the amount given to the OBA for
scholarships, if one has given say, Rs. 20 lakh which allows the OBA to sponsor two students, then if
a top up is not done, then the number of students being sponsored would reduce. He said that
having a scholarship that would sponsor only 5% of the annual fee wasn’t worth the trouble (this
happened in 1992 or 1993) therefore the OBA decided that a top up should be done or else the
amount should be merged with another amount in order to sponsor the full fees of students.
Hemchandra Basappa asked that since his batch had already given Rs. 25 lakh, could he ask for
partial withdrawal of the money and given to the BJES to be managed separately so that the annual
lecture could be held. The President informed Hemachandra Basappa that this matter would be
addressed on another platform and not in this Meeting.
George Ollapally drew the attention of the General Body that previously OBA funds had been utilized
to honour Battle Casualties (War Casualties) with an expenditure of Rs. 1.5 lakh to 2 lakh and such an
expenditure would not be permitted by the proposed Articles. He cautioned that the Class of 1968
would not take kindly to such a narrow focus being adopted and instead suggested that OBA funds
be used to honour mentors. He suggested that we should have it open and be flexible.
The House adopted point 5.4 from SERIAL NUMBER 20 unanimously.
President referred to point 5.5 with regards to non-corpus funds (subject to the nomenclature to be
adopted for the word ‘corpus’.)
The House adopted point 5.5 from SERIAL NUMBER 20 unanimously.
President referred to point 5.6 – Investments of funds and returns thereon
Sunil Pichamuthu (batch of 1995) stated that 5.6.1 had to mention ‘SJBHS OBA’ instead of
President said that the problem was if the change was made to BJES, the OBA would be stuck so it
could be changed to SJBHS OBA account instead.
Johnny said that the account name is subject to the bank the account is opened in. He said that the
present bank has given the benefit of having the OBA account under SJBHS which is under the BJES
but other banks may not permit it that way, then the change would be invalid. He proposed
changing association to ‘in bank accounts as permitted by the BJES for the association.’
President proposed the following, “The MC shall ensure that such funds, that are not required for
immediate disbursement or use, are retained in the bank accounts as permitted by the BJES for the
use of the Association.”
The House adopted point number 5.6 under SERIAL NUMBER 20 unanimously.
President referred to serial number 21 with regards to the change of venue for the AGM in case the
school premises were not available. Also, the changes in numbering.
Hemachandra mentioned that he thinks the school premises were more than enough for holding the
AGM as it is confirmed since years that the OBA AGM is held on the first Sunday of September every
Ian said that this had risen because last year the hall was not available when the OBA has decided to
hold an EGM.
Vinay Jain (batch of 2013) stated that whenever the EGM is going to be held, the calendar of events
with hall occupation can be checked for the same and he also mentioned that there are multiple
halls where the EGM can be held.
Santosh Naidu said that in his memory over the past 60 or 70 years we have never had the AGM
outside the school.
Llewellyn Rego proposed that the resolution be passed as presented as it is an enabling provision.
The Proposal in SERIAL NUMBER 21 was adopted unanimously.
Ian Faria took charge from thereon and arrived at the matters that helped the OBA to operate
properly, especially the AGMs and EGMs at serial number 22. Item number 6 regarding EGM.
SERIAL NUMBER 22 was proposed by Llewellyn Rego and seconded by Siddharth Raja.
The Proposal in SERIAL NUMBER 22 was adopted unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to serial number 23 – Conduct of General Meetings which will now be called
‘Conduct of General Body Meetings.’ He said that more clarifications were added to this in order to
make it less ambiguous.
Siddharth Raja (batch of 1990) said that the current requirement for a quorum at the beginning of an
AGM was 50, and this should remain the same or higher during the course of the meeting too.
The Proposal in SERIAL NUMBER 23 was adopted unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to serial number 24 – The Management. He said that a little extra time needed to
be spent on this. He asked to refer to the extreme right column for the explanatory remarks.
Yeshwanth Gurjer (batch of 1991) stated his concern regarding 9.3. He said that as everything is
being amended, it would be good for the election process also to be mentioned in order to avoid
issues in the future. He inquired if the OBA had robust by-laws by which they could hold an election
without hindrances (issue of 2019 election).
President mentioned that until this year the OBA had not had an election and did not even see the
need for an election but agreed that there had been a controversy this year. He said that generally
the OBA trusts the election officer to hold the elections squarely and fairly but the point was that for
the post of the Secretary the eligibility was not defined clearly so that eligibility would be addressed
in point 9.5.
Sunil Rasquinha (batch of 1995) stated that the members needed to know what the by-laws were
and the same is required to be specified whether it would be added in the booklet or elsewhere. He
proposed that the by-laws for an election process be drafted and brought to the AGM next year.
Llewellyn Rego mentioned that the AoA does not have a comprehensive plan indicating how the
elections should be conducted at the AGM but in point 9.6 there are some provisions that indicate
this. 9.5 gives the eligibility and criteria for standing for elections so this resolution can be amended
and incorporate the electoral process.
Johnny Nereyeth said that we have a provision in point 14.2 for giving flesh to the skeleton that is
laid out. He said that Llewellyn Rego gave the outline but the final decisions should be made by the
Siddharth Raja (batch of 1990) inquired that if the by-laws were drafted now for ratification at the
next AGM then how it would be unclear as to how the election, if any, would be held at that AGM.
He suggested having a transitory provision stating that for the election in the coming year, the rules
would be framed and circulated in advance by the present MC.
Ian Faria clarified that this point only made it simple and clear so the MC had very little to decide
upon so the gaps would be addressed in the by-laws and ratified at the next AGM. He also clarified
why the OBA needed the post of the Immediate Past President for the second term because it is
actually an advisory body, and not a privilege, to help the current President. He mentioned another
amendment 9.2 which came from the BJES, whom they met the previous day, which said, “The
Principal ‘or the designate of the BJES’ should be added. He stated another point, “An ex-officio
member of the MC without any voting rights should be changed to ‘with voting rights’.
John Nereyeth (batch of 1974) said, “If you’re changing the Principal of the school as the Treasurer
of the association, or the nominee of the BJES, that has to come consistently across the board.
Property will be held in the name of the Principal of SJBHS or a nominee of the BJES. It is said here
that an ex-officio member who does not have a vote is only the Past President, but the Treasurer
and the Rector have a vote.”
President stated that it is proposed that the Past President will not vote so point 9.2a should read as
follows, ‘the Principal of St. Joseph’s Boys’ High School or the designate of the BJES, as the Treasurer
of the association shall also have voting rights.’ 9.2c – ‘The Rector of St. Joseph’s School and College,
or a designate of the BJES, who shall also have voting rights.’
Sunil Rasquinha with regards to 9.2c stated that the Immediate Past President should continue if the
President is elected twice and also should have voting rights as he sees no reason why the Past
President is disrespected like that.
Ian Faria stated that the role of the Past President is advisory and once the President has done one
year, he doesn’t really need advisory in the second year too. He said that the MC should be able to
survive on its own without the advisory for the second term.
Llewellyn Rego stated that a Past President is ex-officio and automatically a member of the
committee as he can look backward and forward.
Franklin Antonat (batch of 1988) addressed Sunil Rasquinha’s query and said there was already a
criterion where a member should have served at least one year in the managing committee to
become an office bearer so as he has already done his duty there. He said that by the time one
became the President, he would have already served 2 or 3 years being Vice President, Secretary
or/and Treasurer, therefore, Franklin felt that extra advisory was not required and the post of the
immediate Past President should be kept vacant during the second term.
Siddharth Raja (batch of 1990) said that this issue was brought up during the drafting sessions and
the view was that the OBA followed the principle of an election to post and the entire construct that
follows subsequently is on the number of years served is as a member of the committee in an
elected capacity and therefore it was decided that when it came to the Past President, he should
serve as an ex-officio capacity without voting rights.
He proposed that 9.5 should remain as is. The same was seconded unanimously.
Vasanth inquired why the President gets only two consecutive terms.
Ian Faria confirmed that fresh blood should get in therefore the President only serves for two years if
re-elected and then moves on.
With regards to 9.6.1, Sunil Rasquinha said that if it was restricted to 6 years then they are
eliminating a large pool of people, in terms of people who have served on the committee, in terms
of experience in managing the committee. Therefore, he suggested that the 6 year cap be knocked
off for MC members.
Vinay Jain (batch of 2013) agreed with Sunil’s point where there should be no cap on the maximum
number of years a Member can serve on the committee as the experience is required.
Bryan Nobbay said that hanging around in the committee forever was not a solution and it wasn’t
contributing to the association at all. He suggested that a cap remain.
Llewellyn Rego suggested that no cap be there for any post right from the President down to the MC
because if the general body likes someone, then he should serve as long as he can because all have
an equal right in the general body.
Franklin said that there is a process where one starts as a co-opted member for 2 years, then they
come into the committee, say for 4 years, then he has a chance to do another 2 years as office
bearer which already gives him 8 years on the committee, so with around 400 members joining
every year (including these 8 years), he asked if there wouldn’t be 10 people available who would
want to serve. He voted for the cap to remain as is.
Leonard A. S. Kulangara (batch of 1990) subscribes to the thought of having a cap of 6 years because
new blood needs to get in and fresh ideas need to flow through the committee.
9.6 – The majority voted to keep the term limit as proposed.
Ian referred to point 9.7 – Co-opted members.
Santosh Naidu suggested training youngsters within the committee as there were 15 members in the
committee which is more than enough, so 5 co-opted members was not required without a reason
for the same.
President clarified that it is not mandatory to co-opt members into the committee. He also said that
the reason to co-opt members was to pull younger people into the MC.
Bryan Nobbay (batch of 1977) felt that it was unnecessary to have a huge committee consisting of 20
members but the AGM needed to be trusted enough as they are always looking to vote for young
blood or new blood for the MC. He also stated that people who are not elected could be co-opted
into the MC, which did not make any sense.
Lennold D’Almeida (batch of 1994) suggested that they have 10 committee members and of the 10
committee members, 5 positions should be reserved for Old Boys under the age of 30.
George Ollapally said that in his opinion 15 was a very large number and considering the number of
events that are planned throughout the year, one MC member could be in charge of 2 events while
rest of the time they are underemployed. He also said that in the past the sub-committees worked
very well and there is no reason why young blood cannot be inducted into the sub-committees in
larger numbers than just 5.
Vasanth Fernandes suggested having a sub-committee instead of co-opted members.
President stated, after the majority voted against co-opting 5 more members, that the proposal in
point 9.7 failed.
Ian Faria referred to serial number 25, point 25.1.
The same was passed unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to next point Powers of the MC. He said that nothing was changed but the same
details were elaborated.
Llewellyn Rego talked about the composite rule relating to the powers of the MC, duties and
functioning of MC members and was not in support of the proposals therein as it involves removal of
members who are part of the committee. He stated the line, ‘in case the MC so desires, they may
request the Governance Committee to nominate any member of the OBA to fill that position until
the next election.’ In lieu of the Governance Committee, which he felt was an unnecessary
requirement, he elaborated on the issue. Firstly, he said that the MC was an embodiment of the
general body, who are the agents of the OBA, and they function on and behalf of the general body
which is the most supreme body that predicates the way in which the association should function
and in which direction it should go. He said that electing the MC and then providing a provision that
allows the exclusion of a member, just because he is against some dictate for example, will only
create disaster for the general body and the Old Boys’ Association. Secondly, he said that the
Governance Committee was a product of and would consist of a few Past Presidents, couple of
lawyers and a couple of members. He stated that the creation of this committee went against all the
rules, which say that once a member completed six years and became President, they were done
with their duties, and asked why the Past President still wanted to govern the association for life. He
elaborated with examples on why that concept would be dangerous for the functioning of the
association. He therefore stated that he was completely against that provision which allowed the
Governance Committee to be the supreme body ultimately.
Ian Faria clarified a few things with regards to the Governance Committee and said that the word
‘Governance’ was not accepted by the BJES auditors; therefore, it was suggested to replace the same
with ‘Advisory Council’ which would not be the Supreme Court of the OBA. He said that the idea of
having the Governance Council, which would then be proposed to be called the Advisory Group, was
to be there only in case there were issues within the MC. He reiterated that the Advisory Council,
who would have the best interests of the OBA at heart, would only get life if there was a problem
within the MC because when there were issues with the agents of the OBA (the MC), it would be a
tedious job to call for an EGM in order to sort out the issue. He also stated that the Governance
Committee or Advisory Council would consist of, on rotation, 3 Past Presidents elected by the Past
Presidents Group. He also asked the General Body to suggest if there was a better option to solve
such an issue.
Vasanth Fernandes, with regards to point 10.9, said that he was okay with whatever the committee
was called but at the end of the day the fact remained that the Advisory Council would still dictate
what would or would not happen just because the MC had differences.
Ian Faria read out the provision as he felt that the rule was being misquoted and misunderstood.
Bryan Nobbay (batch of 1977) and Past President himself said that the time had come for the Past
Presidents to be in the past as there was a distinct difference between intervening and interference.
He also said that the Presidents have had ample time to serve in the OBA and now it was time to
help rather than interfere. He asked the members to trust the intelligence of their elected MC to sort
out issues and take the right decisions.
A. G. Krishnaswamy (batch of 1972) concurred with Bryan and asked that in case the MC went into a
tailspin, what would be the solution. He suggested not eliminating an Advisory Council.
Praveen Rodrigues (batch of 1985) said that in principle the concept of having an Advisory Council
was brilliant but he asked if the BJES could be the Advisory Council instead of the Past Presidents.
Sanjay Balan (batch of 1989) said he was for the provision of having an Advisory Council because
someone had to reinforce the principles of what the OBA was about. He also suggested a change in
points 4 and 5 where the word ‘compromise’ could be changed to ‘resolution’.
Ian Faria asked the general body not to eliminate the council but select any 3 members they thought
could serve the purpose.
President referred to serial number 31, new article number 13 and asked the general body to vote
for or against.
K. T. Lazar (batch of 1985) suggested that the BJES be the advisory council.
The proposal contained in point 13, under SERIAL NUMBER 31, was withdrawn.
Ian Faria referred to serial number 25, point 25.2 – roles and responsibilities and asked the House if
anyone wanted to suggest or comment on the same.
The House passed point 25.2 unanimously.
Lennold (Batch of 1994) asked if point 10.1.c under serial number 25.1 was amended.
President stated, under serial number 25.1, point 10.1.c , “in the case of a vacancy to any elected
position on the MC, by resignation or otherwise, the remaining members of the MC may assign the
duties and responsibilities of such MC member to one or more of the remaining members.” The
rest stood deleted.
The House unanimously passed point 25.1 subject to the above change in 10.1.c.
Ian Faria referred to point 25.3 and clarified with regards to casting vote.
Llewellyn Rego said that removal of the casting vote was incorrect because that was meant to
eliminate inconveniences in the elections.
The House passed the point 10.3 unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to point 10.4.
The House passed the point 10.4 unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to point 10.5.
Sunil Rasquinha (batch of 1995) suggested the Treasurer cannot be sole signatory to sign documents.
Aditya Kaura (batch of 1991) said that the Treasurer wasn’t the sole signatory but mentioned the
signatories as Father Principal and one of the two from President and Joint Treasurer.
Praveen said that this year it was changed to Treasurer and President or Joint Treasurer.
Bryan Nobbay suggested putting the Treasurer as the co-signatory of all accounts.
Johnny said that the bank accounts are opened by the BJES and the BJES can nominate the
signatories irrelevant to what is mentioned in the Mem-Arts of the OBA.
President read out sub-clause b, “The Treasurer shall be the mandatory co-signatory of all
accounts, fixed deposits and investments of the Association, along with the President or the Joint
The House adopted sub-clause b unanimously.
President read out 10.5 – Treasurer as, ‘all property of the association shall stand in the name of
the Principal of St. Joseph’s Boys’ High School, ex-officio Treasurer of the association or the
designate of the BJES.’ Everything else stands deleted.
The House adopted point 10.5 unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to point 10.6 – Joint Treasurer.
The House adopted point 10.6 unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to point 10.7 – committee members.
The House adopted point 10.7 unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to point 10.8 – sub-committee members.
The House adopted point 10.8 unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to point 10.9 – exclusion of members.
Sanjay Balan (batch of 1989) asked how this would work if the Governance Committee is not there.
Ian Faria mentioned that the MC could go to the general body, appoint an advisory or go to the BJES.
President asked the House to vote for or against point 10.9, with or without amendments.
The proposal contained in Sl. No. 10.9 failed.
Ian Faria referred to serial number 26 – MC meetings.
Santosh Naidu suggested having an Inquiry Committee to handle complaints.
Yeshwanth Gurjer (batch of 1991) said that since it has been decided to increase the size of the
committee, the quorum number should also be increased.
Ian Faria referred point 11.4 under serial number 26 and read the change as follows, “the quorum
for the duration of the MC meetings shall be 9 elected members instead of 5.”
The House adopted point 11.4 subject to the above change unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to point 11.5.
The House adopted point 11.5 unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to point 12 – code of conduct for the managing committee members.
The House adopted point 12 unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to point 13 under serial number 32 – amendment of AoA and MoA.
The House adopted point 14 under SERIAL NUMBER 32 unanimously.
Ian Faria referred to point number 15 under serial number 33 – and mentioned that the Governance
Committee part would be deleted.
President said that 15.2 and 15.3 would be deleted therefore retaining only 15.1.
The House adopted 33 subject to the above changes unanimously.
President referred to point 16.1 under serial number 34 – interpretation of the rules and regulations,
and read as follows, “The interpretation of these Articles of Association and the by-laws, their
construction and effect, as decided by the MC and any ruling given by the MC shall be final and
binding on all members.” Remaining stands deleted.
The House adopted point 16.1 under serial number 34, subject to the above changes,
Ian Faria referred to serial number 35 – other provision.
Johnny proposed to mentioned that the MC would be authorized to make consequent changes to
the wordings of any of the above clauses, should the need arise in order to give effect to the other
resolutions passed by the general body until the AGM.”
Yeshwanth, with regards to the branches, said that the OBA itself currently had a good brand name
and outsourcing the same with no control over it would not be a wise decision. Also, he mentioned
that there were different rules in different countries and inquired how the rules would be drafted
Ian Faria answered and said that the overall principle was that this was for the Old Boys and OBA
North America Chapter does not have much say in what happened in OBA India. He mentioned that
they wanted to have their own meetings with a set of their own rules so they did not have to come
back to India for every little detail which would be a tedious affair. He also said that as good faith
prevails, there has been no issue with any of the branches anywhere.
Lennold (batch of 1994) inquired about the social media property of the Association.
The President mentioned that social media property is covered by movable property and is the
property of the OBA.
The House adopted SERIAL NUMBER 35 unanimously.
Ian Faria referred serial number 36 and mentioned it has been deleted. He thanked the House and
said it was a wonderful experience to have worked with the drafting committee and particularly
acknowledged Johnny and his contribution to the provisions. He also thanked the President for
giving him the opportunity to conduct a part of the meeting. He specially thanked Llewellyn Rego
who had several different opinions with the best interest of the OBA at heart.
Shreyas Mohan (batch of 2012) suggested creating official social media pages on every platform for
the OBA where the credentials could be secured with the Principal rather than how it is done
currently with individual persons handling it.
Father Rector, Brian Pereira, addressed the General Body briefly and mentioned that the BJES had
seen the draft and commented on the same. He thanked everyone for being there and wished the
OBA the best.
The President closed the EGM by thanking everyone for their presence and reiterating that the office was
open in case anyone wanted to go through the accounts in detail.
Individual Open Category (GROSS Stableford)
Winner: ARJUN MALIK, 1994, GEORGE’S (74 Gross) – Trophy + Sun Mountain 3-wheel Trolley + Blue Jacket (embroidered SJBHS Golf Blazer)
Runner Up: DAVID D’SOUZA, 1981, DAVID’S (74 Gross) – Trophy + Obaku Watch + Amrut Single Malt (OBA Edition) + Puma Web Belt Set + Josephite Varsity Vest
* ARJUN MALIK won on a better back 9
Individual Handicap Category – GOLD (0-10)
Winner: AMITABH PODDAR, 1986, ANDREW’S (35pts) – Trophy + BPL 40” LED television + Amrut Single Malt (OBA Edition) + Josephite Varsity Vest
Runner Up: NEERAJ SHETTY, 2019, DAVID’S (34pts) – Trophy + Mizuno 50 º Approach Wedge + Obaku Watch + Box of Mizuno Balls
Individual Handicap Category – SILVER (11-16)
Winner: CS MADAPPA, 1984, PATRICK’S (37pts) – Trophy + BPL 40” LED television + Amrut Single Malt (OBA Edition) + Josephite Varsity Vest
Runner Up: PRASHANT SAKHAMURI, 1977, GEORGE’S (36pts) – Trophy + Mizuno Golf Bag + Obaku Watch + Box of Mizuno balls
Individual Handicap Category – BRONZE (17-24)
Winner: THIMAIH COLUVANDA CARIAPA, 1984, DAVID’S (39pts) – Trophy + BPL 40”LED television + Amrut Single Malt (OBA Edition) + Josephite Varsity Vest
Runner Up: SANAL SKARIA, 1990, GEORGE’S (37pts) – Trophy + Mizuno 52 º Approach wedge + Ferrari Watch + Box of Mizuno Balls
Individual Handicap Category – SENIORS
Winner: MAJ GEN BALA THAMBIAH, 1963, DAVID’S (27pts) – Trophy + Amrut Single Malt (OBA Edition) + Puma Belt Set
Runner Up: AVM K.P. SREEKANTH, 1961, DAVID’S (27pts) – Medal + Puma Belt Set + Shoe Bag
* MAJ GEN BALA THAMBIAH won on a better back 9
Team Rolling Trophies
Father Hedwig D’Costa Inter-House Golf Tournament trophy – best 10 scores of each school House (combined stableford points); Medal
Winners: GEORGE’S HOUSE (319pts) with Arjun Malik 1994, Sanal Skaria 1990, Prashant Sakhamuri 1977, Sanjeev Rakhra 1987, Rishi Mehra 1988, Chaitanya Harimohan 1999, Vikram Bihani 1990, Sanjay Mathias 1990, Vikram Sahgal 1981, Uttam Muthappa 1991
Father Dennis Coelho Memorial Inter-Batch Golf Tournament trophy – best pair’s score from each Batch (combined stableford points); Medal
Winners: BATCH of 1984 (combined 76pts) with Thimaih Coluvanda Cariapa and C.S. Madappa
Special On-course prizes
Straightest Drive (overall) on hole #11 – Ferrari Watch – SANDEEP KUMAR MAINI, 1983, ANDREW’S
Straightest Drive (overall) on hole # 4 – Featherlite Liberate office chair – PETER GEORGE MATHIAS, 1962, DAVID’S
Closest to the Pin (overall) on hole #15 – Featherlite Liberate office chair – GAURAV HINDUJA, 1999, PATRICK’S
Closest to the Pin (overall) on hole #2 – Featherlite Liberate office chair – NANDAN KAMATH, 1993, DAVID’S
Monster Putt Competition
On front Practice Putting Green (overall) – Amrut Single Malt (OBA Limited/Numbered Edition) – SHARDENDU MALPANI, 1992, GEORGE’S – holed out
Chip In The Tub Competition
At rear Practice Putting Green (overall) – Ferrari Watch – SANJAY MATHIAS, 1990, GEORGE’S – chip in