Allowed

Prakashnagar Credit Co-Operative Society Limited v. Smt Meeramukunda

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2022WP/39654/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition to quash an order by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The order was set aside and the matter remanded because the Tribunal allowed an appeal that was utterly incompetent, as a previous appeal by the same parties had been dismissed for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remitted to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration.

Prakashnagar Credit Co-Operative Society Limited Vs Smt Meeramukunda — Karnataka HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.39654 OF 2015 (CS-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

PRAKASHNAGAR CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.625-113, 9^TH MAIN, PRAKASHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 021, BY ITS SECRETARY S.ADISHESHA , AGED 54 YRS.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. G.F. HUNASIKATTIMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

1 . SMT MEERAMUKUNDA W/O SRI.MUKUNDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YRS., HOUSE NO.37/A, NEAR M.E.G. CENTRE, KENSINGTON ROAD, NEW NO.6, KALAHALLI, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 042.

¶10

2 . SRI MUKUNDA S/O LATE P.M.SWAMY , AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HOUSE NO.37/A, NEAR M.E.G. CENTRE, KENSINGTON ROAD, NEW NO.6, KALAHALLI, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 042.

¶11

3 . THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD., PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, BANGALORE-560018

¶12

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. TAJUDDIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SMT. KAVITHA H.C., HCGP FOR R-3 )

¶13

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 02.07.2015 (ANNEXURE-F) IN APPEAL

¶14

²

¶15

NO.195/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPLLATE TRIBUNAL, AS ILLEGAL, PERVERSE, CAPRICIOUS, VEXATIOUS.

¶16

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 02.07.2015 passed in Appeal No.195/2013 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The said appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner and respondent No.3 was allowed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, “KAT”).

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶20

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the documents produced, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the award dated 19.05.2008 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in order to point out that aggrieved by the said award, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein preferred an

¶21

³

¶22

appeal in Appeal No.462/2008 before the KAT, Bengaluru and though the said appeal was dismissed for nonprosecution vide Order dated 25.03.2010, instead of challenging the same or taking necessary steps to seek restoration of the said appeal, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred one more appeal in Appeal No.195/2013, which was not maintainable in law. In this context, it is submitted that, though the fact that the earlier appeal filed by the very same respondent Nos.1 and 2 was dismissed for nonprosecution was brought to the notice of the KAT, Bengaluru, by the petitioner herein along with its application for vacating stay dated 22.07.2022, despite the same, the KAT, Bengaluru has proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide Appeal No.195/2013 and set aside the award dated 19.05.2008 and remitted the matter back to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies without considering or appreciating that the Appeal No.462/2008 filed by the very same respondent Nos.1 and 2 had been dismissed for non-prosecution and consequently, the impugned order passed by the KAT deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.

¶23

⁴

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. Learned counsel further submits that subsequent to the KAT passing the impugned order, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have paid Rs.6,86,200/- to the petitioner / Society and since the petitioner / Society admits the receipt of the aforesaid sum from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

By way of rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner while repudiating the various contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner / Society has received the aforesaid sum of Rs.6,86,200/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2; it is however contended that the said amount has been accounted for properly by the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are still due in a sum of

¶26

⁵

¶27

Rs.15,20,992/- as on 28.02.2022, which is payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 with further interest.

¶28

By way of further reply to the aforesaid contention regarding payment of Rs.6,86,200/-, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, on instructions submits that the aforesaid sum of Rs.6,86,200/- has been paid by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the petitioner, who has received that same in full and final settlement of the claims of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the petitioner and that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not due in any sum.

¶29

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims including the question as to whether the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are due in any sum to the petitioner as on today, having regard to the fact that the KAT, Bengaluru has proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering or appreciating the fact that the earlier appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Appeal No.462/2008 had been dismissed by the KAT, Bengaluru, itself on 25.03.2010, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I

¶30

⁶

¶31

deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the KAT, Bengaluru, for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient opportunity to the both parties and keeping open all contentions including the amounts due by the petitioner.

¶32

8. In the result, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶35

(ii) Impugned order at Annexure – F dated 02.07.2015 passed in Appeal No.195/2013 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. is hereby set aside.

¶36

(iii) Matter is remitted back to the KAT, Bengaluru, for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶37

(iv) All rival contentions between the parties including maintainability of the Appeal No.195/2013, amounts due by

¶38

⁷

¶39

the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the petitioner, etc., are kept open to be decided by the Tribunal and no opinion

¶40

is expressed on the same.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Prakashnagar Credit Co-Operative Society Limited v. Smt Meeramukunda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakashnagar Credit Co-Operative Society Limited v. Smt Meeramukunda

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

Smt. Gowramma Vs Mr. Narayanaswamy

Jayanti Botanical Gardens Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner

Eshwar R Vs Karnataka Examination Authority

M/S Davanagere University Vs National Council of Teacher Education (Ncte)

H S Vishwanatha Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative

M/S Quest Alliance Vs the Union of India