Partly allowed

Sri Lakshminarayana Co. Operative Bank Limited v. the Joint Registrar of Cooperative

Karnataka HC12 Apr 2023WP/8525/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a writ petition, partly allowed the bank's petition. Due to contentions regarding willingness to pay and collusion that were not considered by the Appellate Tribunal, the Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society to dispose of the matter afresh within nine months. Respondents were directed to appear for a specific date.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is partly allowed. The DRCS is directed to dispose of the matter within nine months. Respondents are directed to appear by the fixed date.

Sri Lakshminarayana Co. Operative Bank… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 8525 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8525 OF 2012 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO. 1627/2, PARK ROAD, RAMAMOHANAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SRI. M. BALAKRISHNA.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (RULE 441), KARNATAKA STATE URBAN BANK, FEDERATION, DOUBLE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶14

SMT. K.V. PONNAMMA, W/O. LATE KESHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶15

SRI. K.K. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O. LATE KESHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. K.K. RISHIKESH, S/O. LATE KESHAVAN,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 8525 of 2012

¶19

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4, ARE RESIDING AT NO.136, NEXT TO KATERAMMA TEMPLE, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY MS. A. R. SHARADAMBA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. M. M. PRASHANTHA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED.31.1.12 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.548/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS W.P., COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner/Co-operative Bank is before this Court

¶26

seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.548/2007, vide Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

b. Consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 8525 of 2012

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner is that, by way of the impugned order dated 31.01.2012, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) in Appeal No.548/2007 has remanded the matter to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society (DRCS) for fresh consideration. There is no requirement for that to be done since the award has been passed against respondent Nos.2 to 4 after considering all relevant aspects.

¶32

Objections having been filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4, a specific contention has been taken that respondent Nos.2 to 4 were willing to make payment of due amounts on 02.02.2009 and that a demand draft dated 19.03.2009 was subsequently sent under a cover letter dated 20.03.2009 which was not encashed by the Bank. These aspects have not been considered by the KAT. If respondent Nos.2 to 4 were ready to make payment of the monies to the Bank as on 20.03.2009 and a demand draft had been sent to the petitioner/Bank. It was for the petitioner/Bank to encash the demand draft and resolve the matter.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 8525 of 2012

¶35

There are various other contentions with the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 alleges as regards collusion between the officers of the Bank and the auction purchase. These are all matters which cannot be looked into or enquired into in a writ proceeding. Hence, for the reason otherwise than what has been made available by the KAT in its impugned order given, I am of the considered opinion that the matter would have to be freshly considered by the DRCS by affording opportunity to both the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 to place all their contentions, documents, and evidence on record before the DRCS. As such, I pass the following;

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The writ petition is partly allowed .

¶38

ii. Since the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order at Annexure-A has remanded the matter to DRCS. The DRCS is directed to disposed of the matter within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶39

¶40

WP No. 8525 of 2012

¶41

iii. The submission by the counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 that they will Co-operate with the DRCS for expeditious disposal and will not take any unnecessary adjournments is placed on record.

¶42

iv. Since the order is passed in presence of both the counsel, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall remain present before the DRCS on 22.05.2023 at 3.00 p.m.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Sri Lakshminarayana Co. Operative Bank Limited v. the Joint Registrar of Cooperative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshminarayana Co. Operative Bank Limited v. the Joint Registrar of Cooperative

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

Mr. Zabi Ulla Vs the Commissioner

Smt Shamshad Begum Vs the State of Karnataka

V Kirshna Murthy Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mrs. Nefeesa Sheikh Ahamed Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kalikamba Souharda Sahakari Niyamita Vs the Block Education Officer

Mrs Noojahan Vs the State of Karnataka