Sri Manjunath Singh Vs Mrs Tilak B Alias Thilaka S Rai

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:35110 WP No. 51726 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.51726 OF 2016 (GM-CON)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MANJUNATH SINGH S/O GANESH SINGH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY SUB DIVISION MANGALORE AND LIQUIDATOR SOUTH CANARA AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD MANGALORE.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MRS TILAK B ALIAS THILAKA S RAI D/O MR. RADHAKRISHNA SHETTY, AGED 44 YEARS, R/AT KAYARTHODI HOUSE SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-575 001.

¶14

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.05.2016 AGAINST THIS PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXA IN E.A.NO.39/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORTUM, MANGALORE AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35110 WP No. 51726 of 2016

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Manglore, in E.A.No.39/2016 to execute an order passed by it in C.C. No.224/2015.

¶23

The petitioner contends that South Canara Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Society Limited was a cooperative society registered under provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1959’ for short). The respondent herein had made a claim against the society under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in C.C. No.224/2015. The Consumer Forum in terms of an order dated 31.08.2015 had directed the society and others to jointly and severally refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- along with the contractual rate of interest till the date of filing and to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment and a sum of Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses. The respondent claims that the society did not comply with the aforesaid order, which compelled him to

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35110 WP No. 51726 of 2016

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

initiate action to execute the order in E.A.No.39/2016 to recover Rs.48,904/-. The petitioner being the liquidator appointed to the society is before this Court, challenging the proceedings as well as the order dated 11.05.2016, by which the Consumer Forum took cognizance and took summons to the petitioner.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a liquidator of the society on 19.03.2015 under Section 73(1) of the Act, 1959. He submits that liquidation proceedings is underway and in the meanwhile, the respondent has initiated proceedings against the society for recovery of certain amounts deposited by him. He contends that in view of the specific bar contained under Section 118(2) of the Act, 1959, the proceedings against the petitioner is not maintainable, unless leave is obtained from the Registrar.

¶28

The respondent though served with the notice of

¶29

this petitioner has not appeared. Therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions.

¶30

The petitioner was appointed as a liquidator of the society referred above, under Section 73(1) of the Act, 1959.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35110 WP No. 51726 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The impugned proceedings are taken out against the petitioner as he was a liquidator of the society. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, once winding-up proceedings are underway and the liquidator is working on it, no proceedings are maintainable against the liquidator or against the society in view of Section 118(2) of the Act, 1959, unless appropriate permission is obtained from the Registrar. The petitioner has claimed that no such permission was obtained from the respondent before initiating the proceedings in E.A.No.39/2016.

¶34

In that view of the matter, the following order is

¶35

passed:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The petition is allowed-in-part .

¶38

ii. The proceedings against the petitioner in E.A.No.39/2016 pending before the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Manglore, is quashed.

¶39