Dismissed¶54

B M Bhagyamma v. the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2025WP/18306/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:23886; WP No. 18306 of 2024 (CS-RES); High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Suraj Govindaraj J.; decision dated 03-07-2025; writ of mandamus; specific performance of co-operative society resolution dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure-B); agreement of sale; disputed questions of fact; no vested right; Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., Kilara, Mandya; Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mandya Sub Division; Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; Rs.6,52,750/- with interest; auction purchase confirmed; subsequent Board refused implementation; petition dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate forum; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum; no substantive relief granted. ¶54

B M Bhagyamma Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum; no substantive relief granted.

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing respondent No.2-Society to act in accordance with, approve and implement its resolution dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure-B) by collecting the amount due from the petitioners and releasing the properties in question. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

What the petitioners seek by way of mandamus is, in substance, specific performance of the resolution dated 15.11.2019, which at the most can be contended to be an agreement of sale entered into by the Society with the petitioners.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

There being disputed questions of fact, and the petitioners having no vested right under any law (the resolution being at most an agreement), such a mandamus cannot be issued.

¶53

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum.ratio¶53
The petition stands dismissed.ratio¶54
The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petition.obiter¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus -- enforcement of co-operative society's resolution -- writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondent No.2-Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. to act in accordance with and approve its resolution dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure-B), whereby the Society had agreed to transfer property (purchased by it in auction about thirty years earlier following misappropriation by the husband/father of the petitioners, which auction purchase stood confirmed) on payment of Rs.6,52,750/- with interest, subject to permission of respondent No.1-Assistant Registrar -- HELD: the resolution at the most can be contended to be an agreement of sale entered into by the Society with the petitioners; there being disputed questions of fact and no vested right in the petitioners under any law, such a mandamus cannot be issued; liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum; petition dismissed; Court expressed no opinion on the merits (Suraj Govindaraj, J.).

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:23886 WP No. 18306 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 18306 OF 2024 (CS-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

B M BHAGYAMMA W/O K T NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶11

K N SHASHIKUMAR S/O K T NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶12

K N RAJATH KUMAR S/O K T NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(ALL ARE R/O K E B ROAD,

¶16

KILARA, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, AND DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. VINAY D HOSMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23886 WP No. 18306 of 2024

HC-KAR

MANDYA SUB DIVISION,

MANDYA - 571 401.

THE MILK PRODUCERS

¶26

CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP BY ITS SECRETARY, KILARA, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. A.S. HARISH., AGA FOR R1; SRI. SREENIVASAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶29

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED 15/11/2019 PASSED BY R2 AND APPROVE THE SAME BY COLLECTING THE AMOUNT DUE TO THEM FROM THE PETITIONERS AND RELEASE THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:23886 WP No. 18306 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following

¶37

reliefs:

¶38

''(a). A writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to act in accordance with the resolution vide Annexure-B dated 15.11.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 and approve the same by collecting the amount due to them from the petitioners and release the properties in question in the interest of justice and equality.

¶39

(b). Any other writ or order appropriate in the circumstances of the case and

¶40

(c). Award costs in the interest of justice and equity. ''

¶41

The grievance of the petitioners is that the resolution dated 15.11.2019 at Annexure-B to the petition has not been complied with by the respondent No.2-Society by obtaining permission from the respondent No.1-Assisstant Registrar.

¶42

The submission of Sri. Vinay D Hosmath, learned counsel for the petitioners is that by way of the said resolution, the society had agreed to transfer the property of the husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, which had been brought by respondent No.2-Society in an

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:23886 WP No. 18306 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

auction, subject to the petitioner making payment of a sum of Rs.6,52,750/- with interest.

¶47

Sri. Sreenivasan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that on account of misappropriation of money by the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the property of the said person had been brought for sale and in the said auction respondent No.2 has purchased the property thirty years ago, which though challenged has been confirmed. The resolution which has been passed at the behest of the petitioners by using their good offices with the then members of the Board of Directors. The said resolution is not in the interest of the Society and as such the Board of Directors who assumed the office subsequently are of the categorical opinion that the said resolution cannot be implemented.

¶48

Having considered both the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, what essentially is sought to be achieved by the petitioners by seeking for a mandamus of specific performance of the resolution dated 15.11.2019 which at

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:23886 WP No. 18306 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the most can be contented to be an agreement of sale entered into by the Society with the petitioners.

¶53

There being disputed questions of fact, such a mandamus cannot be issued when there is no vested right in the petitioners under any law, but is only contented to be an agreement by way of a resolution. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, the

¶54

petition stands dismissed .

¶55

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petition.

¶56

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶57

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

B M Bhagyamma v. the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B M Bhagyamma v. the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S the Pavilion Owners Association Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M/S Natural Spirits Vs Income Tax Officer

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs M/S Narayana Electrical Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Kaivalyapathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G R Srinivasa Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Smt Bharathi Vs Lalithamma K