Disposed

R. Vasantha v. Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2024WP/4176/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Director challenged the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's interim stay of the Assistant Registrar's order vacating an earlier ex parte stay on a society resolution accepting another director's resignation. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing reconsideration of the vacate-stay application with opportunity to object, fixing timelines.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions for fresh consideration of the vacate-stay application after hearing respondent No.3; pending revision petition does not survive.

R. Vasantha Vs Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6575 WP No. 4176 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 4176 OF 2024 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R. VASANTHA, W/O. SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, DIRECTOR, KARIMUDDANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KARIMUDDANAHALLI,R/AT HANUMANTHAPURA, KARIMUDDANAHALLI POST, BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION, HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105.

¶12

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

KARIMUDDANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KARIMUDDANAHALLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 189, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, (REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959).

¶14

THIMMEGOWDA, S/O. CHIKKAHONNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PRESIDENT, KARIMUDDANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KARIMUDDANAHALLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 189.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:6575 WP No. 4176 of 2024

¶18

(BY SRI SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1, SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI SANDESH T B, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3, V/O/DT: 15.02.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 5.12.23 PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO. 56/23 BY THE HON'BLE COURT KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri.Deviprasad Shetty, the learned counsel

¶23

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, the learned Senior counsel along with Sri.Sandesh T.B., the learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.3.

¶24

Learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that relief is not sought against the 2^nd respondent -Society as such he would submit that the notice to the 2^nd respondent -Society be dispensed with.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:6575 WP No. 4176 of 2024

¶28

Accordingly, notice to the 2^nd respondent -Society is

¶29

dispensed with at the risk of the petitioner. This order does not bind on the 2^nd respondent -Society.

¶30

The petitioner who is a Director of 2^nd respondent -

¶31

Society is aggrieved by the interim order granted by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No.56/2023. The said Revision Petition is filed challenging the interim order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies/1^st respondent on an application filed by the present petitioner to vacate the interim order granted earlier in favour of the 3^rd respondent.

¶32

The background facts are as under:

¶33

According to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent who was a Director of the 2^nd respondent-Society tendered his resignation to the directorship on 25.03.2022. On 18.04.2022 according to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent-Society passed a resolution accepting the resignation. The 3^rd respondent has raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, before the 1^st respondent

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:6575 WP No. 4176 of 2024

¶36

alleging that he has not tendered his resignation. The signature on the resignation is disputed.

¶37

The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies granted an exparte interim order staying the operation of the resolution dated 18.04.2022. The present petitioner impleaded himself as a party to the said proceeding. He filed an application to vacate the exparte interim order on the premise that the resignation becomes operative soon after expiry of 15 days from the date of resignation as same is not withdrawn by the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an application to vacate the exparte stay order. The 1^st respondent-Authority accepted the plea made in the application and vacated the interim stay order granted by the Authority.

¶38

Aggrieved by the said order, the 3^rd respondent filed a Revision Petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal passed a stay order after hearing the present petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner is before this Court.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:6575 WP No. 4176 of 2024

¶41

Learned counsel Sri.Deviprasad Shetty, for the petitioner would contend that the respondents did not file objection to the application for vacating the stay filed before the 1^st respondent-Authority and in addition to that, the 1^st respondent has considered the disputed signature of the 3^rd respondent on the resignation letter as well as his admitted signatures and has come to the conclusion that the 3^rd respondent did not withdraw the resignation within 15 days from the date of tendering his signature and has rightly vacated the exparte interim order. It is his further contention that the Appellate Authority in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction could not have stayed the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies vacating exparte interim stay order.

¶42

Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would contend that the submission made by the 3^rd respondent before the 1^st respondent-Authority was misconstrued. It is his submission that merely because the petitioner before the 1^st respondent Authority did submit that there is no objection to the application for vacating stay, it should not be construed as a consent for vacating the interim order. Submission was to the

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:6575 WP No. 4176 of 2024

¶44

effect that there is no need to file any formal objection to the said application. It is his contention that averments made in the petition itself would be the objection to the application for vacating the stay.

¶45

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and also perused the records.

¶46

From the records placed before this Court and from the facts narrated above, it is evident that the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the interim order granted by the Appellate Authority in the Revision Petition which is pending. The Revision Petition, which is pending before the Appellate Authority is again the petition challenging the interim order. Since a contention is raised that there was no consent for vacating an interim order, this Court is of the view that an opportunity should be given to the 3^rd respondent, to make a statement on the application filed by the present petitioner for vacating the exparte interim order granted by the 1^st respondent-Authority. The 1^st respondent Authority shall consider the objections if any, to be filed by the 3^rd respondent, which again shall be filed within 15 days from today and

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:6575 WP No. 4176 of 2024

¶49

thereafter, the Authority shall pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioner for vacating the stay order.

¶50

The order on interim application shall be passed within 30 days from today. It is also made clear that the final order on the petition filed by the petitioner shall be passed within 60 days from today.

¶51

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of and since this Court has issued a direction to consider the application for vacating the stay afresh, pending Revision Petition before the Appellate Authority does not survive for consideration.

¶52

Parties shall appear before the 1^st respondentAuthority on 01.03.2024 without any further notice on the same day. Objection to the application by the petitioner for vacating stay be filed by the 3^rd respondent, if any.

¶53

All contentions are kept open and nothing is expressed on the merits of the claim of both parties.

¶54

GVP

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

R. Vasantha v. Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Vasantha v. Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

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

M/S Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs M/S Alpha Precision Components (P) Ltd.

Sri. Govindappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Badramma Vs the State of Karnataka

R Rangaswamy Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Primary Co. Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dayananda Thokkottu Vs the State of Karnataka