Disposed

M.a.Shajahan and Others v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Kerala HC31 Jan 2008WP(C)/3670/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP against show-cause notice proposing disqualification of cooperative bank directors due to alleged defaults. Court directed consideration of objections after hearing and stayed enforcement of adverse decisions for two weeks without touching merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider objections after adequate hearing; stay on enforcement of adverse decision for two weeks.

M.a.Shajahan and Others Vs the Joint Registrar of… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 3670 of 2008(J)

PETITIONERS:

M.A.SHAJAHAN, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KECHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KECHERY, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶10

SHERIFA HAMZA, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KECHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KECHERY, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶11

A.A.ABBAS, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KECHERY, SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KECHERY, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶12

M.A.SUBAIR, MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KECHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KECHERY, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶14

RESPONDENT:

¶15

¶16

JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), TRICHUR.

¶17

BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶19

ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶22

WP(C).No.3670 of 2008-J

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶24

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioners challenge Ext.P1 notice issued on 18-1-2008 calling upon them to show cause against disqualification from the committee of a cooperative bank. The only allegation therein is that they are defaulters to the society. Exts.P6 to P9 show that the society has certified that they are not defaulters as on the date of issuance of Ext.P1. The petitioners contend that Ext.P1 has been issued even without appropriate information and material being gathered from the society. On such basis, it is contended that the action proposed under Ext.P1 is one intended to abuse the law to create lack of quorum.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for parties and

¶27

¶28

being satisfied that the apprehensions of the petitioners cannot be rejected as baseless, this writ petition is disposed of directing that objections to Ext.P1 shall be considered after giving adequate opportunity of hearing and a decision shall be rendered by stating reasons. In the light of the nature of the contents of Ext.P1 qua Exts.P6 to P9, I am also satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to an order that any decision on Ext.P1, if it is adverse to their interest, shall not be enforced for a period of two weeks from the date of its communication to the petitioners. Hence, it is so ordered. It is clarified that this judgment does not touch on the merits of the writ petition.

¶29

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶30

Sha/

M.a.Shajahan and Others v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Shajahan and Others v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.a.Saleem and 2 Others Vs State Bank of Travancore and Another

Ajayan B.S. Vs Alappuzha District Co-Op. Bank Rep.Gener

Satish Murthi Vs Empire Builders

T.T.Martin Vs P.Suresh Babu

T.T.Martin Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur

Moideen Sha Vs State of Kerala