Dismissed

Girish V.P. v. Kochu Rani Jose

Kerala HC28 Feb 2018Con.Case(C)/1843/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a contempt order alleging violation of an interim stay directing a cooperative society to limit AGM expenses per circulars. The Respondent filed an affidavit showing total expenditure was well below the permitted per-member limit. The Court found no proof of violation and dismissed the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

The contempt court case is dismissed due to lack of sufficient proof of violation.

Girish V.P. Vs Kochu Rani Jose — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1843 of 2017

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C).NO.30135/2017 DATED 19/9/2017)

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C)NO.30135/2017:

¶8

GIRISH V.P., S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 35 YEARS, VARIKKATT KALARIKAL HOUSE, PATTEPADAM, KOTTENALLOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 662.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C)NO.30135/2017:

¶11

1. KOCHU RANI JOSE,

¶12

W/O.JOSE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SECRETARY,

¶13

THUMBOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.359,

¶14

PATTEPADAM BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 662.

¶15

2. JOHNY K.P.,

¶16

S/O.PORUNCHU, AGED 53 YEARS, PRESIDENT,

¶17

THUMBOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.359,

¶18

PATTEPADAM BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 662.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶20

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

1/3/2018

¶22

sts

¶23

Con.Case(C).No. 1843 of 2017

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEXURE	A	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.6/2000 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT VIDE NO.MP(5) 21840/99 DATED 20/1/2000
ANNEXURE	B	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.27(A)/2015 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT VIDE NO.G(1) 18649/15 DATED 5/6/2015
ANNEXURE	C	TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C).NO.30135/2017 DATED 19/9/2017
ANNEXURE	D	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.30164/2017 DATED 22/9/2017
ANNEXURE	E	TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF SPECIAL SALE OFFICER DATED 27/9/2017
RESPONDEN	T'S	ANNEXURES:

¶27

ANNEXURE R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE 2017 GENERAL BODY EXPENSE STATEMENT.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts 1/3/2018

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶32

Cont. Case (C) No.1843 of 2017

¶33

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2018

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining that the interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition on 19.09.2017 is violated by the respondents. As per the interim order, it was directed that the expenditure for the Annual General Body Meeting shall be made by the 4^th respondent society only in accordance with the circular issued

¶36

by the State Government or the Registrar in that regard. According to the petitioner, the respondents in utter disobedience to the lawful order passed in Annexure-C and the circulars in Annexures-A and B, given expensive gift to the members, and therefore, the interim order passed by this Court is violated.

¶37

A counter affidavit is filed by the 2^nd respondent refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. It is also stated thereunder that, as per Annexure-B circular, the maximum food expense allowed for each member is Rs.100/-.

¶38

Since the total number of members in the society is 4,828, the

¶39

Cont. Case (C) No.1843 of 2017 2

¶40

total amount which can be spent for food expenses is 4828 x 100 equalling to Rs.4,82,800/-. But the society has spent only an amount of Rs.1,50,897/- for the combined purpose of food, Mic, pandal, newspaper advertisement etc. etc., evident from Annexure-R4(a) General Body Expenses Statement. Therefore, the society has spent far less than what is allowed in Annexure-B circular. Hence the petitioner's allegation that the respondent society has acted in violation of circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the interim order passed by this Court is false and intended to mislead this Court.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶42

It is evident from Annexure-R4(a) that the amounts are spent in accordance with Annexure-B circular produced by the petitioner. Even though an amount of Rs.100/- per person can be spent, the total expenditure incurred by the society makes it clear that far less than the said amount is utilized towards expenses for the General Body meeting. Therefore, I

¶43

Cont. Case (C) No.1843 of 2017 3

¶44

do not think that petitioner has produced any sufficient proof before this Court in order to establish that Annexure-R4(a) is

¶45

in any manner incorrect.

¶46

Therefore, the contempt court case has no sustenance, same is dismissed.

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY

JUDGE

St/28.02.2018

Girish V.P. v. Kochu Rani Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish V.P. v. Kochu Rani Jose

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

S.K.Padmakumar Vs K.R.Jyothilal

M/S. Kwality Pharmaceuticals Vs State of Keala

Kerala Karshaka Samrakshana Association Vs Dr. Suresh Babu, IAS

Rappai Vs Dr.a.Kowsigan

K.R. Prasad Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Shamna.P Vs the Greater Cochin Development Authority (Gcda)