Disposed¶44

Mr Venkatesh M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2025WP/32252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WRIT PETITION NO.32252 OF 2024 (CS-RES); decided 07-01-2025 by Justice K.S. Hemalekha; writ of mandamus; Janatha Co-operative Bank Limited; release of 50% share of surplus auction proceeds; mortgage loan Rs.27,00,000/-; recovery decree Rs.27,67,622/- with 12.5% interest and 2% compound interest; Dispute No.ARD/UBF/1086/2018-19; Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies; Section 70 Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959; alternative statutory remedy; Article 226 maintainability; petition disposed of with liberty to approach appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus issued; writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. ¶44

Mr Venkatesh M Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No mandamus issued; writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim falls under the purview of Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959.

¶39

Court's answer

Where an alternative statutory remedy is available, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is generally not maintainable unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction or undue delay.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's grievance, primarily relating to the recovery proceedings and distribution of the auction process, is squarely covered within the scope and ambit of Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959, which provides a detailed mechanism for resolving such disputes.

¶44

Key takeaways

The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy through the cooperative dispute resolution process; the writ petition is not maintainable as there exists an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959, and it stands disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a member of the Janatha Co-operative Bank Limited seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Bank to consider his representation dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure-C) for release of his claimed 50% share of the surplus remaining after public auction of the jointly owned mortgaged property, pursuant to a mortgage loan of Rs.27,00,000/- availed jointly with his brother and a recovery decree of Rs.27,67,622/- with interest in Dispute No.ARD/UBF/1086/2018-19 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Held, disposing of the petition: the dispute being between a member and the co-operative society, and the grievance relating to recovery proceedings and distribution of auction proceeds being squarely covered by Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which provides a detailed mechanism and an effective alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable in the absence of exceptional circumstances; liberty granted to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.32252 OF 2024 (CS-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. VENKATESH M., S/O. SRI. S. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.L-93, 11^TH CROSS, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA, BASHYAM NAGAR, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRAKASH K.A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT., CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 051.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024

¶17

THE JANATHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.156, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, 17^TH CROSS ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 055, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ MANAGER.

¶18

MR. SRINIVAS M., S/O SRI. S. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.L-96, 11^TH CROSS, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA, BASHYAM NAGAR, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SIDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SHAILESH S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO R-3 BANK HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.03.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO R-3 BANK AS PER ANNEXURE-C

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 30.03.2024, as per Annexure-C.

¶28

The petitioner, the member of respondent No.3 - the Co-operative Society jointly with respondent No.4 availed a mortgage loan of Rs.27,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs only) on 12.12.2011 from respondent No.3-Cooperative Bank, against their Joint property.

¶29

They defaulted in repayment, consequently respondent No.3 initiated the recovery proceedings against both the petitioner and respondent No.4 in Dispute No.ARD/UBF/1086/2018-19 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operatives Societies. The dispute was allowed directing both the petitioner and respondent No.4 to pay the amount of Rs.27,67,622/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Two only) along with interest @ 12.5% and compound interest @ 2% until full payment.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024

¶32

Following the order, the mortgaged property was

¶33

sold in the public auction. After deducting the outstanding amount, the balance amount received in the auction amount was held by respondent No.3. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the mortgaged property was in joint ownership, the petitioner is entitled to 50% of the surplus amount. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting for the release of his share. The petitioner is aggrieved by the delay and inaction on the part of respondent No.3 in releasing the surplus amount to which according to the petitioner he is entitled.

¶34

Learned AGA relies on Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘the KCS Act, 1959’ for short) and submits that dispute herein relates between the member and the co-operative society and since it provides detailed mechanism for resolving the disputes.

¶35

Petitioner's counsel argues that the petitioner is entitled to a share of the proceeds from the sale of the joint property, as the auction resulted in a surplus after the loan

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024

¶37

amount was cleared, however, respondent No.3 rejected the claim for release of the funds, indicating that the petitioner must either provide a joint statement with his brother or obtain an order to facilitate the release of his share. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his claim does not fall under the provision of Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959, as the dispute pertains to recovery and distribution of auction proceeds and thus cannot be resolved within the scope of the statutory forum.

¶38

The question that falls for consideration is:

¶39

“Whether the petitioner’s claim falls under the

¶40

purview of Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959?”

¶41

8. The dispute is between the member and the co-

¶42

operative society, it is well-established principles that when an alternative statutory remedy is available, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is generally not maintainable unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as the violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction or undue delay. Here the petitioner’s grievance

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024

¶44

primarily relates to the recovery proceedings and distribution of the auction process, which is squarely covered within the scope and ambit of Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959. The KCS Act, 1959 provides a detailed mechanism for resolving such disputes, more particularly in cases of loans, property recovery and distribution processes. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy available to him through the cooperative dispute resolution process, and the point for consideration is answered accordingly, holding the writ petition is not maintainable as there exists an alternative and efficacious remedy provided under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959 the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶45

Sd/- (JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA)

¶46

TMP

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Mr Venkatesh M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Venkatesh M v. the State of Karnataka

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

Smt Lakshmi G Poojari Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Vijay Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kamalama Vs the State of Karnataka

Hariyanna Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka

Ramakantha. H. G. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Augustine Rodrigues, Vs State of Karnataka