Dismissed

M.M.Basheer v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Society

Kerala HC7 Jul 2017RP/393/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition against the dismissal of a writ petition, the Kerala High Court rejected the petitioner's claim for refund of amounts paid under a circular issued by a cooperative bank. The court held that since the full dues were realized via auction before the circular was issued, the petitioner was not entitled to its benefit to claim waiver of interest.

What the court decided

AI extract

M.M.Basheer Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Society — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2017/16TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 393 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6223/2015 DATED 14-11-2016

¶7

----------------

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):

¶9

M.M.BASHEER S/O. LATE MOHAMMED KASSIM, PERINCHERIL HOUSE, PANACHIKKAVU POST PERUNNA WEST, CHANGANACHERY VILLAGE AND TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):

¶12

1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY COLLECTORATE BUILDING, KOTTAYAM 686 002

¶13

2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)

¶14

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

¶15

3. THE VAZHAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

¶16

VAZHAPPALLY POST, CHANGANACHERRY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶17

4. E.J JAMES

¶18

EDASSERI PARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY EAST,CHANGANACHERRY

¶19

5. LISAMMA JAMES., W/O. F.J JAMES EDASSERI PARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY EAST, CHANGANACHERRY

¶20

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J. MANURAJ R3 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE, SC

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

sdr/-

¶23

RP.No. 393 of 2017

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES

¶26

ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.12.16 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY, TRIVANDRUM SENT TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER.

¶27

ANNEXUR-A2 TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITIONERS APPEAL DATED 28.12.16 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.02.17 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, COMMUNICATED TO REVIEW PETITIONER IN REPLY TO ANNEXURE-A2 ACCOMPANIED BY COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE CENTRAL BANK CONFERENCE HELD ON 6.11. 13 AT TRIVANDRUM.

¶28

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶33

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

¶34

R.P.No.393 of 2017

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C).No.6223 of 2015-C.

¶37

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

¶38

Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2017.

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

The parties are referred to in this order as they appear in the writ petition.

¶41

The petitioner was a surety to a loan availed by

¶42

the fourth respondent from the third respondent bank. Since the fourth respondent did not repay the loan, the third respondent bank obtained an award for realisation of the amounts against the petitioner as well. Later, in execution of the said award, an item of property owned by the petitioner was brought for sale and sold. The sale of the property was, however, set aside later by this Court as per Ext.P8 order on condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amounts due to the third respondent bank. The petitioner thereafter preferred Ext.P6 representation claiming

¶43

refund of a portion of the amount remitted by him on the ground that he was entitled to waiver of interest in the light of Ext.P12

¶44

¶45

R.P.No.393/2017 in

¶46

W.P.(C).No.6223/2015-C.

¶47

circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 03.01.2014. By Ext.P11 order, the said representation was rejected by the first respondent. Ext.P11 was under challenge in the writ petition. This Court took the view that circulars in the nature of Ext.P12 are intended to realise the amounts due to cooperative societies and no one can claim refund of any amount already paid on the strength of the such circulars. It was also noticed by this Court that the property of the petitioner was sold and the entire amount due to the Bank was realised on 30.12.2013 itself and Ext.P12 circular was issued only thereafter on 3.1.2014. The writ petition, in the circumstances, was dismissed.

¶48

The learned counsel for the review petitioner vehemently contended that Ext.P12 circular was though issued only on 03.01.2014, the same was issued in furtherance to the decision taken in the Central Bank conference convened by the Minister of Co-operative Societies on 06.11.2013. As such, according to the learned counsel, it is highly unjust and unreasonable to deny the benefit of the said circular to the petitioner. As noted above, the judgment sought to be reviewed

¶49

R.P.No.393/2017 in W.P.(C).No.6223/2015-C.

¶50

was rendered taking the view that circulars in the nature of Ext.P12 are intended only to realise the amounts due to cooperative societies and refund of amounts already paid cannot be claimed on the strength of such circulars. As such, even if it is found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Ext.P12 circular had he not liquidated the liability, the same is of no consequence since the amounts due to the bank has been realised by due process of law in execution of an award passed under the Kerala Co-operative societies Act which has become final. The review petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶51

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶52

Kvs/-

¶53

// true copy //

M.M.Basheer v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.M.Basheer v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thamarakshy M Vs Rajamanikyam

N. Haseena Vs S. Venkatesapathy

Stibin Stephen Vs the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur

Santhosh Cyriac Vs Rajamanikyam

The Calicut City Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.D.2777 Vs S.Lalithabika IAS

State of Kerala Vs Sadique Muhammed