In a writ appeal against a single judge's order, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeal, holding that no merit was shown since the respondent society had received funds from the depositor and could not disburse them due to financial constraints.
The writ appeal against the single judge's order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944
WA NO. 336 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2022 IN WP(C)NO. 19018/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4:
1 BALARAMAPURAM PANCHAYAT RESIDENT WELFARE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BALARAMAPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695501, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2, 5:
1 P.RAJAN AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, THENGUMTHUNDIL, PUTHENVEEDU, MANAKKARA, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2
Writ Appeal No.336 of 2022
6 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695543 SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SRI.RIJI RAGENDRAN SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
Writ Appeal No.336 of 2022
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
Writ Appeal No.336 of 2022
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2022.
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.01.2022 in W.P.(C) No.19018 of 2021. The appellants were respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition. Parties are referred to in this judgment as they appear in the writ petition.
4
Writ Appeal No.336 of 2022
The first petitioner requested the third respondent to close the fixed deposits and adjust the proceeds of the same to settle the liability of the second petitioner. The third respondent did not consider the said request. The writ petition was filed in the circumstances seeking directions to the third respondent to make the adjustment referred to above.
5
Writ Appeal No.336 of 2022
petition directing the third respondent to adjust the liability of the second petitioner with the proceeds of the fixed deposits of the first petitioner, and to pay the balance, if any, to the first petitioner. Respondents 3 and 4 are aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge.
out that the second petitioner was a member of the Managing Committee of the third respondent, and while holding the said office, he committed several misleads, mostly economic in nature and proceedings have, therefore, been initiated against him under Section 68 of the Act. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that there is a mystery as to how the first petitioner who is not a member of the third respondent would deposit money with the third respondent, and the true nature of the said transaction would be revealed only at the culmination of the proceedings under Section 68 initiated against the second petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge ought not have, in the circumstances, directed the
6
Writ Appeal No.336 of 2022
adjustment sought by petitioners 1 and 2.
for respondents 3 and 4 did not dispute the fact that the first petitioner has made the fixed deposits referred to in the writ petition. If as a matter of fact, amounts have been received by the third respondent from the first petitioner and if the third respondent is unable to repay the same, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with for having issued the impugned direction.
The writ appeal is, therefore, without merits and the
same is, accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.
YKB
7
Writ Appeal No.336 of 2022
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 09.03.2020 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(c) NO.35503 OF 2019.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 18.09.2019.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 22.10.2019.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT DATED 22.10.2019.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the single judge erred in directing respondents 3 and 4 to adjust a member's debt with the proceeds of a non-member's fixed deposit.
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ appeal against such direction.
1 Balaramapuram Panchayat Resident Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd.
2 Convenor, Administrative Committee, Balaramapuram Panchayat Resident Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd.
1 P.Rajan
2 K.Sukumaran
3 Manejuleesan
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Thiruvananthapuram
P.B.Suresh Kumar
C.S.Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
