Allowed

Cochin City Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.E-1101 v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Kerala HC8 Sept 2021WP(C)/13950/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Petitioner Bank challenged Ext P14 order allowing an appeal against its member's expulsion. The court held that the order exhibited non-application of mind, was unreasoned, and liable for interference. It quashed the order and directed a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext P14 order quashed; 1st respondent to conduct fresh hearing and pass orders.

Cochin City Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.E-1101 Vs… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 13950 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

COCHIN CITY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.E-1101 AYYAPPANKAVU, KOCHI - 18, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS. M.SASINDRAN SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) ERNAKULAM -682 013.

¶10

2 C.R.SEMINLAL,CHANDRASERIL HOUSE, K.R.PANKAJAKSHAN ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SR. GP SMT.SHEEJA C.S

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 13950 OF 2020

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Alleging that the 2^nd respondent, who is a member

¶16

of the petitioner society, is indulging in activities against the interests of the society, Ext P1 resolution was moved by two members of the society proposing to expel the 2^nd respondent from the membership of the society. The committee issued notice to the 2^nd respondent and found the reply to be unsatisfactory and accordingly a general body meeting was convened. In the special general body meeting, the resolution was passed expelling the 2^nd respondent from membership. As per Ext P6, the 2^nd respondent was intimated the same.

¶17

Challenging the expulsion, the 2^nd respondent preferred Ext P7 appeal before the 1^st respondent. As per Ext P11 order, the 1^st respondent allowed the appeal on the ground that, in terms of Section 30 and Rule 36 of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules a special general body meeting could have been

¶18

¶19

WP(C) NO. 13950 OF 2020

¶20

convened only on the request of 1/5 of the members,

¶21

and the said requirement was violated.

¶22

The petitioner society challenged the said

¶23

order before this Court in W.P(C) No.26254 of 2013.

¶24

The writ petition was dismissed, affirming Ext P11 order. Challenging the judgment in the writ petition the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.1266 of 2016. As per Ext P13 judgment the writ appeal was allowed holding that, the stipulation in Section 30 and Rule 36 requiring the request of 1/5 of the

¶25

total members of the society for convening of a special general body, does not apply for convening a meeting for consideration of a resolution for expulsion of a member in terms of Section 17 of the Co-operative Societies Act. After setting aside Ext P11 order, the 1^st respondent was directed to rehear the appeal and pass fresh orders on merits. Pursuant to the said directions, the 1^st respondent passed Ext P14 order allowing the appeal. The same is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶26

WP(C) NO. 13950 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶29

A perusal of Ext P14 reveals that there is

¶30

total non-application of mind and failure to consider any of the issues that arose for consideration. The order is unreasoned. The only discussion made in the order, which itself is only a sentence, does not lead to a conclusion. Ext P14 is liable to be interfered with and I do so. Fresh orders are to be passed after hearing the parties.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext

¶32

P14 order is quashed. The 1^st respondent shall conduct a fresh hearing on the appeal and pass orders after adverting to the contentions of the parties.

¶33

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

¶34

vdv

¶35

WP(C) NO. 13950 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13950/2020

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

EXHIBIT	P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PROPOSED BY TWO MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY DATED 12/10/2012.
EXHIBIT	P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/10/2012.
EXHIBIT	P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/11/2012, SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT	P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23/11/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT	P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT INTIMATING EXPULSION FROM MEMBERSHIP.
EXHIBIT	P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 7/1/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT	P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE EVIDENCING THE PARTICIPATION OF 131 MEMBERS IN THE GENERAL BODY.
EXHIBIT	P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY TO THE EXHIBIT P7 APPEAL.
EXHIBIT	P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE BYE LAWS OF THE SOCIETY.

¶40

WP(C) NO. 13950 OF 2020

¶41

¶42

EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1) 149/13/K.DIS. DATED 23/9/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT JOINT REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/6/2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.26254 OF 2013.
EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1266 OF 2016 DATED 21/5/2018.
EXHIBIT P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/3/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Cochin City Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.E-1101 v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cochin City Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.E-1101 v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Daniel, Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Nadeera Beevi, Vs the District Collector

Shaji.R Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative

Sajumon J Mattathil Vs Regional Transport Authority

A.Prajeesh Vs Regional Transport Authority

Sheriff N.A Vs State of Kerala