Dismissed

R. Sasidharan v. the Sreekandamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.974

Kerala HC13 Oct 2021WP(C)/366/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed connected writ petitions challenging an order of surcharge, disqualification, and administrator appointment against managing committee members of a cooperative bank. The Court upheld the surcharge order due to loss caused by unnecessary, overvalued, and unauthorized property acquisition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the order of surcharge and consequential disqualification.

R. Sasidharan Vs the Sreekandamangalam Service… — 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 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 40266 OF 2017

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 E.J.THOMAS AGED 63 YEARS S/O. E. T. JOSEPH, AGED 63 YEARS, EDATHICHIRA, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE-688527.

¶8

2 ANTONY AGED 48 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS, PATTUKULANGARA, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN CODE-688527.

¶9

BY ADV SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶13

3 SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.974 MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-688527.

¶14

WP(C) NO. 40266 OF 2017 -2-

¶15

*ADDL. R4 K.N ANJANEYAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 66 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, NOW RESIDING AT KARIKKATTIL ILLAM, MUTTATHIPARAMBU PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶16

***[ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDERS OF THIS COURT DATED 14.03.2018 IN IA NO.4564/2018]**

¶17

BY ADVS. BY SMT.SHEEJA C.S., SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.B.HOOD SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.M.ISHA SRI.AMAL KASHA SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).366/2018, 16828/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶22

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943

¶23

WP(C) NO. 366 OF 2018

¶24

PETITIONERS:

¶25

1 R. SASIDHARAN SARADALAYAM, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶26

2 P.GOPAKUMAR KOONAIKAL, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶27

3 ARCHANA.S KIZHAKKE MANGALATH, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶28

4 VIDHYA UNNIKRISHNAN KANICHERRY HOUSE, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O.,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶29

BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶30

RESPONDENTS:

¶31

1 THE SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.974 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O.,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 527.

¶32

2 THE PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.974,MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 527.

¶33

3 THE RETURNING OFFICER SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.974, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 527. (UNIT INSPECTOR, KANJIKUZHI, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CHERTHALA).

¶34

WP(C) NO. 366 OF 2018 -2-

¶35

4 THE ELECTORAL OFFICER SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.974, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 527.(ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CHERTHALA). 5 THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CO-OPERATION(C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADVS. SRI.AMAL KASHA SRI.T.B.HOOD SMT.M.ISHABY SMT.SHEEJA C.S., SR. GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).40266/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶37

PRESENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶39

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943

¶40

WP(C) NO. 16828 OF 2018

¶41

PETITIONERS:

¶42

1 R.SASIDHARAN AGED 55 YEARS SARADALAYAM,MARUTHORVATTOM.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶43

2 P.GOPAKUMAR KONNAIKAL,MUTTATHIPARAMBU.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶44

3 ARCHANA.S KIZHAKKE MANGALATH,MUTTATHIPARAMBU.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶45

4 VIDHYA UNNIKRISHNAN KANICHERY HOUSE,MUTTATHIPARAMBU.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶46

BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV

¶47

RESPONDENTS:

¶48

1 THE SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MUTTATHIPARAMBU.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT688527.

¶49

2 THE PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.974,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MUTTATHIPARAMBU.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT688527.

¶50

3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIESGENERAL ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶51

WP(C) NO. 16828 OF 2018 -2-

¶52

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CO-OPERATIVE (C)DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶53

BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN BY SMT.SHEEJA C.S., SR. GOVT. PLEADER

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).40266/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶56

PRESENT

¶57

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶58

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943

¶59

WP(C) NO. 22866 OF 2018

¶60

PETITIONERS:

¶61

1 E.J.THOMAS MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE, BANK LTD. NO.674, SREEKANTAMANGALAM, MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶62

2 ANTONY PATTUKULANGARA MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674,

¶63

SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶64

3 R. SASIDHARAN

¶65

MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674,

¶66

SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶67

4 P. GOPAKUMAR

¶68

MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674,

¶69

SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶70

5 ARCHANA S. MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674,

¶71

SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶72

6 VIDHYA UNNIKRISHNAN MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674,

¶73

SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶74

7 M. ROCKY MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674, SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶75

WP(C) NO. 22866 OF 2018 -2-

¶76

8 K.P. THIRUMENI

¶77

MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674, SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶78

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SMT.NISHA GEORGE

¶79

RESPONDENTS:

¶80

1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITIES (GENERAL) ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶81

2 THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.974 SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE. BY SMT.SHEEJA C.S., SR. GOVT. PLEADER

¶82

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).40266/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶83

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶84

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W. P. (C) Nos.40266 of 2017, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶85

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2021

¶86

J U D G M E N T

¶87

W.P.(C) No.40266/2017 and W.P.(C) No.16828/2018

¶88

challenge an order of surcharge and consequential disqualification against the petitioners who are Managing Committee members of the Sreekantamangalam

¶89

Service Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”). W.P.(C) No.366/2018 is filed challenging

¶90

an election notification to the Managing Committee which

¶91

was issued pending the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of surcharge. W.P.(C) No.22866/2018 challenges the order of appointment of an Administrator consequent on the order of surcharge and disqualification.

¶92

WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶93

-: 2 :-

¶94

On 03.10.2016, the Joint Registrar issued an

¶95

order for enquiry under Section 65 of the Co-operative

¶96

Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as against the Society. On 18.11.2016, the report under

¶97

Section 65 was filed. It was followed by surcharge proceedings under Section 68, initiated as per order dated 19.12.2016. Based on the report under Section 68,

¶98

a notice for hearing in terms of Section 68(2) was issued to the petitioners. The proceedings culminated in Ext.P8 order of surcharge dated 03.06.2017, against the petitioners. The order of surcharge entailed in disqualification of the petitioners in terms of Rule 44(l) of the Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), from being members of the Managing Committee of the Society. The appeal preferred against the order of surcharge and disqualification was

¶99

WP(C) Nos.40266/17,

¶100

366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶101

-: 3 :-

¶102

dismissed by the Government as per Ext.P10 order. The

¶103

sustainability thereof is essentially the issue for

¶104

consideration in these writ petitions.

¶105

Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.George

¶106

Poonthottam and Sri.T.R.Harikumar on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.P.C. Sasidharan and Sri.T.B.Hood, the Special

¶107

Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents.

¶108

The proceedings in question commenced on the

¶109

purchase of an extent of 3.64 Ares of property in Survey No.24-112/1-2 and 6/3 of Thanneermukkam North Village on 11.07.2016. The allegation is that the said purchase was

¶110

in violation of the Rules, and has caused loss to the Society.

¶111

In the reports of the enquiry under Section 65

¶112

and Section 68, the following aspects were noted:-

¶113

WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶114

(1) Prior sanction of the Registrar for purchase of

¶115

the property, as required under Rule 54 of the Rules was

¶116

not obtained.

¶117

(2) The purpose of acquisition is stated to be for

¶118

the establishment of a branch of the Bank. But the

¶119

property in question is hardly 600 metres away from the head office.

¶120

(3) Right through the middle of the property in

¶121

question runs a 'thodu'.

¶122

(4) At one corner of the property in question there

¶123

exists a pond.

¶124

(5) L.T. electric lines pass over the middle of the property.

¶125

(6) Through the eastern boundary of the property

¶126

runs a 11 KV electric line and the stay wire of the

¶127

electric post is planted in the property in question.

¶128

WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶129

-: 5 :-

¶130

(7) The valuation of the property, as reported by

¶131

the Tahsildar is `2,72,733/-, whereas the sale

¶132

consideration paid is `14,40,000/-.

¶133

On the above, the authorities found that the

¶134

acquisition of the property violates the Rule and also

¶135

that, the property acquired was neither necessary nor

¶136

could be put for the purported use, thus resulting in

¶137

loss to the Society out of wilful negligence or mismanagement.

¶138

The petitioners contend that:-

¶139

(a) The objection submitted in the 68(2) proceeding

¶140

was not considered by the authorities.

¶141

(b) Violation of Rule 54 cannot result in the

¶142

proceeding under Section 68.

¶143

¶144

come forward for re-purchase of the property and hence

¶145

WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶146

-: 6 :-

¶147

no loss is caused to the Society.

¶148

(d) The actual loss caused to the Society has not

¶149

been quantified.

¶150

(e) The statute requires a provisional order to be

¶151

passed prior to passing of the final order of surcharge.

¶152

The same has been violated.

¶153

(f) The electric lines passing over the property

¶154

have since been relocated out of the property.

¶155

On the above, the petitioners contend that the

¶156

order of surcharge and the consequential order of

¶157

disqualification are unsustainable.

¶158

Rule 54 of the Rules require previous sanction

¶159

of the Registrar for acquisition of property by a Society. However, it is subject to a proviso that such

¶160

sanction is not necessary where the objects of the

¶161

Society according to its bye-laws include such purchase.

¶162

WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶163

According to the petitioners, one of the objects of the

¶164

Society, as stated in the bye-laws, is acquisition of

¶165

the property and hence, in terms of the proviso to Rule

¶166

54(1) previous sanction of the Registrar is not necessary. The question as to whether the proviso applies to all cases where bye-law contains a clause for acquisition of property or whether it applies to only Societies formed with such objects like housing Societies etc., is pending consideration by a Division Bench of this Court, on a reference. The view taken by this Court, as of now is that, if the bye-laws contain a provision enabling acquisition of property, previous sanction is not necessary. In view thereof, in the case at hand it cannot be held that the failure to obtain sanction from the Registrar amounts to violation of the Rules. Therefore, the finding of the authorities that

¶167

WP(C) Nos.40266/17,

¶168

366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶169

-: 8 :-

¶170

proceedings under Section 68 is liable to be invoked

¶171

consequent to violation of Rule 54 is unsustainable and the said finding is set aside.

¶172

The factual findings entered into by the

¶173

authorities, as mentioned in Serial Numbers 2 to 6 are not as such disputed by the petitioners. As regards finding No.7, regarding the value of the property, the petitioners would contend that the value for which the conveyance was executed is the market value of the property.

¶174

As noted by the authorities, the purpose of acquisition of the property is stated to be for establishment of a branch office. But the fact remains that, the property in question is situated hardly 600 metres away from the head office. In the said view of the matter, the acquisition was unnecessary. That apart,

¶175

WP(C) Nos.40266/17,

¶176

366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶177

-: 9 :-

¶178

there is a “thodu” running right through the middle of

¶179

the property. Here, it is to be remembered that the property in question has an extent of only 3.64 Ares and the existence of a “thodu” right through the middle of the property would divide the property into two halves thereby making the property unsuitable for any effective purpose, especially for construction of a branch office.

¶180

Added to this is the fact that, there exists a pond in one corner of the property. The existence of L.T. and

¶181

eleven KV lines over the property and that a stay wire

¶182

for electric post is planted in the property is not disputed, though it is contended that the same have been got shifted. The authorities have found that, going by the report of the Tahsildar, the property in question was purchased for a value of more than six times for which it is actually worth. No materials were produced

¶183

WP(C) Nos.40266/17,

¶184

366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶185

-: 10 :-

¶186

by the petitioners to prove that the actual market value

¶187

of the property is as is reflected in the sale in question. Therefore, on the materials available, the

¶188

finding of the authorities that the acquisition of

¶189

property in question has caused loss to the Society, is justified.

¶190

Though the petitioners contend that the

¶191

original owner has come forward for re-purchase of the property and therefore, no loss has been caused to the

¶192

Society, it is to be noted that, right from the initiation of proceedings in the year 2016, this was the stand adopted. However, the fact remains that even as on

¶193

the date of passing of the surcharge order and even as on today, the sale consideration paid by the Society has not been recouped. Therefore, the said contention is of

¶194

no avail to the petitioner.

¶195

WP(C) Nos.40266/17,

¶196

366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶197

-: 11 :-

¶198

The petitioners urge that, even if the

¶199

valuation as adopted by the Tahsildar is accepted still

¶200

the authorities went wrong in fixing the entire sale consideration as the liability/loss. The value of the property as assessed by the Tahsildar should have been deducted from the amount paid; thus, there has been no proper quantification of the actual loss suffered by the

¶201

Society. For the said reason, the surcharge order is bad, is another contention. As noticed supra, the acquisition of property in question for the purpose of the Society was unnecessary. The purchased property could not be put to the use of the Society. The property

¶202

is yet to come to the hands of the Society due to some tussle with the registration authorities. When the property will be obtained by the Society, when it could be sold, what would be the value it might fetch are all

¶203

WP(C) Nos.40266/17,

¶204

366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶205

-: 12 :-

¶206

uncertain. As of now it could only be concluded that,

¶207

the purchase of the property has caused loss to the Society to the tune of the entire sale consideration paid by the Society.

¶208

Relying on the judgment of this Court in

¶209

Sanathanan Pillai V. & Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Kollam and Anr. [ILR 2015 (2) Ker. 543] , the learned Senior Counsel would contend that, before passing an order of surcharge, a provisional order should have been passed granting the petitioners an opportunity to pay off the alleged loss sustained by the Society. It is only on failure to comply with the said order could a final order of surcharge be passed, contends the learned counsel. There is no provision under the Act or the Rules requiring issuance of such a provisional order. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the

¶210

WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶211

-: 13 :-

¶212

petitioners also does not lay down such a proposition.

¶213

That was a case where, pursuant to a notice under

¶214

Section 68(2) the amount shown in the notice as liability, was repaid by the Committee. In spite of the payment, a surcharge order was passed for payment of interest. The same was interfered with by this Court. The said decision has no reference to the case at hand.

¶215

To sum up, the materials on record speak volumes that the acquisition of property in question was not in the interests of the Society and has caused the loss to the Society by the wilful negligence and mismanagement. The finding of the authorities, resulting in the order of surcharge are based on materials. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings.

¶216

Having found that the order of surcharge is not liable to be interfered with, the challenge against the

¶217

WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018

¶218

-: 14 :-

¶219

consequential disqualification under Rule 44(l) of the

¶220

Rules fails; so does the challenge against the election notification and the order of appointment of the Administrator.

¶221

In the result, the writ petitions fail and are

¶222

dismissed.

¶223

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 366/2018

¶228

PETITIONER EXHIB	ITS
EXHIBIT-P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)512/2017 DATED 17.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT-P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.9725 OF 2017 DATED 11.04.2017.
EXHIBIT-P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)4143/2016 DATED 03.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT-P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)4143/2016 DATED 27.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT-P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.35445 OF 2017 DATED 10.11.2017.
EXHIBIT-P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE DESABHIMANI DAILY DATED 23.11.2017.
EXHIBIT-P7:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION NO.E(1) 6728/2017/S.C.E.C DATED 14.12.2017.
EXHIBIT-P8:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION
	PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 27.12.2017.

¶229

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16828/2018

¶230

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶231

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO.673 DATED 19.02.2015. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.03.2016 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.03.2016 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 19.03.2016 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENCUMBRANCE DATED 10.11.2016 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN ANJANEYAN NAMBOODITHIRI AND 1ST PETITIONER DATED 15.06.2016. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 11.07.2016 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO.818 DATED 31.03.2016 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 14.10.2016 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 18.11.2016 EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO.336 DATED 28.10.2016 EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF A REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2016 EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)4143/2016 DATED 03.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)/4143/2016 DATED 27.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2018 IN W.A.NO.77 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(ORD)NO.268/2018/CO-OP DATED 04-05.2018.

¶232

¶233

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22866/2018

¶234

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶235

EXHIBIT P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2017 IN W.P.(C)NO.40266 OF 2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P2.	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2018 IN W.A.NO.77 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P3.	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2018 IN W.A.NO.165 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P4.	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.5.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO.16828 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P5.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.6.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE JOINT REGISTRAR
EXHIBIT P6.	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C.R.P. (1) 4143/2016 DATED 27.06.2017 PASSED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR

¶236

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40266/2017

¶237

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶238

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 18.11.2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. C. R. P. (1)512/2017 DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING NO.C. R. P.(1)4143/2016 DATED 27.06.2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. C. R. P. (1)4143/2016 DATED 05.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/NOTICE NO.C. R. P. (1)4143/2016 DATED 17.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 31.05.2017. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 30.05.2017 WITH ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C. R. P. (1)4143/2016 DATED 03.06.2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.530/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST THE ORDER SURCHARGE BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.636/2017/CO-OP DATED 24.11.2017 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

R. Sasidharan v. the Sreekandamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.974

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sasidharan v. the Sreekandamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.974

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Isha Baby Vs the Union of India

Hotel Meriya Vs Excise Commissioner

R. Jayachandran Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

R.Sasidharan Vs the Sreekandamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

E.J.Thomas Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Soceities (General)

E.J.Thomas Vs the State of Kerala