Disposed

Sri K P Champakadhamaswamy v. Sri M G Narayanaswamy

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2022WP/2464/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order restricting a stay of proceedings to only one specific dispute out of many connected matters. The High Court declined to interfere, allowing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for clarification.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file an application before the Tribunal for clarification on the scope of the revision petition and stay.

Sri K P Champakadhamaswamy Vs Sri M G Narayanaswamy — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2464/2022 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI K. P. CHAMPAKADHAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE K.S. PUTTASWAMY, RESIDENT OF PREMISES BEARING NO.291, 1^ST A MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 086.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.K. SUMAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SRI M G NARAYANASWAMY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE KARNATAKA EMPLOYEES TRANSMISSION CORPORATION EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (FORMERLY K.E.B. EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.) OFFICE AT K.E.B. BUILDING, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

¶13

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BANGALORE REGION, GMC BANK BUILDING ANNEXURE PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018.

¶14

SRI KOTRAPPA A H AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, NO.202, R.M.S. COLONY, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BHATTARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶15

SRI C R HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE REVANNA, C/O PUTTAPPA NO.32, K.P.T.C.L QUARTERS, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. NOW RESIDING AT NO.991, 4^TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶16

SRI CHAMUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O CHAMAIAH, NO.1357/A, 5^TH MAIN, E BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶17

SRI H M KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O R.M. MUNIVENKATAPPA, NO.134/1, LAKSHMAIAH LAYOUT, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 024.

¶18

¶19

SRI MIR ZAMA HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED ILYAS, NO.851/6, 10^TH CROSS, 1^ST STAGE, DIVANARAPALYA, GOKUL MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560054.

¶20

SRI P N MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O PERIYAPPA REDDY, NO.226/5, 9^TH C CROSS, PARIMALANAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 099.

¶21

SMT B N ANASUYA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, W/O D.M. THIMMARAYAPAP, NO.50, PALACE LOWER ORCHED MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560003.

¶22

SRI MAHADEV AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LINGAIAH, NO.70, SRIRANGANAGAR, BANASHANAKRI 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085.

¶23

SRI SIDDARAMEGOWDA S AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O SIDDALINGAIAH GOWDA, NO.2, 15^TH CROSS, 29^TH MAIN ROAD, B.T.M. LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 028.

¶24

SRI SANJAY RAJ C D MAJOR IN AGE, S/O DEVARAJ C H, NO.4, BENSON CROSS,

¶25

¶26

BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 046.

¶27

... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R2; SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPALA SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.S. KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.1.2018 PASSED BY THE KAT IN REVISION PETITION 30/2017 ANNEXURE-A AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL UNJUST AND MODIFY THE SAME BY EXTENDING INTERIM OF STAY OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT MERELY IN DISPUTE NO. JRB/MD/33/2009-10 VIDE ANENXURE-C1 BUT ALSO IN OTHER CONNECTED DISPUTES i.e jrb/md/19/2009-10 to JRB/MD/33/2009-10 VIDE ANNXURE-C2 TO C16 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE R-2/JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE REGION BENGALURU.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The petitioner, one of the parties to the multiple disputes under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, has called in question the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 22.01.2018 in Revision Petition No.30/2017 (Annexure-A).

¶33

¶34

Sri K. Suman and Sri M.R. Rajagopal, the

¶35

learned Senior Counsels for the respective parties, submit that:

¶36

[a] The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (the second respondent) has entertained an application for condonation of delay in the disputes in JRB/MD/18-33/2009-10 after clubbing the disputes. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his order dated 07.11.2016 has condoned the delay in filing the dispute.

¶37

[b] The petitioner has filed revision petition in Revision Petition No.30/2017 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, the ‘Tribunal’) . In Paragraph-1 of the Memorandum of the Revision Petition, the petitioner has mentioned that he confines the revision petition to the dispute in No.

¶38

¶39

JRB.MB.18/2009-10, but in the prayer column has sought for relief against the common order dated 07.11.2016 in all the connected matters.

¶40

[c] Initially, the Tribunal granted stay of the further proceedings in all the disputes, but ultimately when it is pointed out that the petitioner’s request for stay could be only insofar as the dispute in

¶41

No.JRB.MB.18/2009-10, the Tribunal has restricted the benefit of the interim order to such dispute.

¶42

The Tribunal’s impugned order reads as follows.

¶43

“Advocate for petitioner files I.A for extension of interim order. Heard the interim order is extended only in respect of Dispute No. JRB/MD/18/2009-10 as per the relief sought under I.A. NO. 11 for stay. This interim order will not affect the orders and the disputes under challenge in

¶44

¶45

connected appeals. Re issue notice to R2 through RPAD if PF paid by 26/2."

¶46

3. The learned Senior Counsels submit that

¶47

there may be some ambiguity with the contrary statement in the memorandum of revision petition and some striking off in the interim application for stay, but it should open to the petitioner to file necessary application before the Tribunal for clarification stating categorically whether the revision petition is confined to the dispute in No.JRB.MB.18/2009-10 or to the other connected matters.

¶48

This Court, on consideration of the circumstances as set forth, is of the considered view that no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required, but the petition must be disposed of with due liberty to the petitioner to file

¶49

¶50

necessary application before the Tribunal, and the

¶51

petition therefore is disposed of accordingly.

¶52

SD/JUDGE

¶53

Sri K P Champakadhamaswamy v. Sri M G Narayanaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K P Champakadhamaswamy v. Sri M G Narayanaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. S Hanumantha Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M R Seetharam Vs Sri K G Venkatesh

Shri Rajendra Patil Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. S. Parvathi Vs Sri. K.Mohan

M U Achaiah Vs the Agriculture Produce Co. Operative Marketing Society (Apcms)

Poornima Vs the State of Karnataka