Disposed

Smt.Philomena Rodrigues v. the Assistant Registrar of

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2022WP/37761/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against order attaching petitioner's salary. Court disposed of petition without interfering with impugned order, directed Revenue Authority to conclude execution in 6 months, and ordered interim deduction of only Rs.1,000/pending.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without interfering with impugned order; directed Revenue Authority to conclude execution in 6 months; interim order to Society deduct Rs.1,000/month only.

Smt.Philomena Rodrigues Vs the Assistant Registrar of — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 37761 OF 2016 (CS-DAS)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT.PHILOMENA RODRIGUES W/O LATE ANTONY B CASTELINO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, SDM ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL BELTHANGADI DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RECOVERY OFFICER, SUB DIVISION, MANGALORE

¶11

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES MYSORE REGION-MYSORE PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSORE-570 024

¶12

THE TEACHERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VITTAL, BANTWAL TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶13

SRI SHARANAPPA BAGALI

¶14

¶15

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶16

4(A) SMT. LALITHA S W/O. LATE SHARANAPPA BAGALI

¶17

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶18

4(B) SMT. DAKSHAYINI D/O. LATE SHARANAPPA BAGALI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶19

4(C) SMT. RENUKA S D/O. LATE SHARANAPPA BAGALI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶20

4(D) SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE SHARANAPPA BAGALI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶21

ALL ARE RESIDING AT AGRICULTURAL QUARTERS DHARMASTHALA-574216 BELTHANGADI TALUK KARNATAKA STATE

¶22

SRI NAGANATH GAYAKWWAD ASSISTANT TEACHER GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE-3

¶23

THE BLOCK EDUCAITON OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, BANTWAL, BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. H.C.KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R1, R2 & R6; SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 IS SERVED;

¶26

¶27

PETITION AGAINST R5 IS DISMISSED V/O DTD 06.09.2019; R-4(b)(c)(d) ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R-4(a) IS DISPENSED WITH; PETITION AGAINST R5 IS DISMISSED V/O. DTD:06.09.2019) )

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.11.2014 PASSED BY R-1 HEREIN IN EX. CASE NO.35/2013-14 AT ANNEX-A.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 - the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Recovery Officer (ARCS) in Ex.Case No.35/2013-14 whereby, the salary of the petitioner who is member of the respondent No.3 - the Teachers Co-operative Society Limited (for short, 'the Society') has been attached to the extent of Rs.1,000/- p.m.

¶32

The material on record discloses that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased - Antony B. Castelino, who is said to have expired on 20.02.2012 subsequent to which, the respondent No.3 - Society filed a dispute before the respondent No.2 and the same was decreed in favour of the respondent No.3 - the Society on

¶33

¶34

08.02.2013. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.3 - the Society initiated execution proceedings in which, the petitioner was arrayed as a judgment debtor. In such execution proceedings, the respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order attaching the salary of the petitioner to an extent of Rs.1,000/- p.m. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.3 jointly submit that since, the interim order passed by this Court was not extended, the respondent No.3 is presently deducting a sum of Rs.3,700/- p.m. from the salary of the petitioner as per its subsequent order which has not been challenged in the present petition. The submission of the learned counsel is placed on record.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and keeping the same open, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent No.3 - Society to deduct a sum of Rs.1,000/- p.m. from the salary of the petitioner till disposal of the execution

¶37

¶38

proceedings, which are presently pending before the respondent No.1 - ARCS.

¶39

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

a. The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order dated 11.11.2014 (AnnexureA) passed by the respondent No.1 - ARCS.

¶42

b. The respondent No.1 - ARCS before whom the execution proceedings are pending is hereby directed to dispose of the execution proceedings in accordance with law after providing opportunity to both sides within a period of six [6] months from today.

¶43

c. It is further directed that by way of an interim arrangement and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the same, the respondent No.3 - the Society shall deduct only a sum of Rs.1,000/- p.m. from the salary of the petitioner from the month of September, 2022 until disposal of the aforesaid execution proceedings.

¶44

¶45

d. The petitioner is also directed to approach the respondent No.3 - Society for amicable resolution of the dispute between them.

¶46

All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is

¶47

expressed on the same.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Smt.Philomena Rodrigues v. the Assistant Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Philomena Rodrigues v. the Assistant Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Umesh Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sri Kareemullaha Vs the Principal Commissioner

Shri. M. N. Kumar Vs the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S Weizmann Forex Ltd. Vs M/S Cisco Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Smt.B.N.Asha Vs Smt. Sunitha

Smt Nagalambika D H Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative