Allowed

R.Santhamoorthy v. the Principal District Judge

Madras HC25 Jun 2019WA/551/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition regarding surcharge proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that since the third respondent society had received the full settlement amount and a District Judge order confirmed no further liability, the society could not proceed with fresh demands. The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is allowed; the order in W.P.No.10078 of 2004 is set aside; connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

R.Santhamoorthy Vs the Principal District Judge — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.06.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.A.No. 551 of 2013 & M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013 1.R.Santhamoorthy .... Appellant/Petitioner -vs1.The Principal District Judge (Co-operative Tribunal) Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District. 2.The Deputy Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram – 631 502. 3.The Special Officer Kancheepuram Pillayarpalayam Seeyamangalampettai Handloom Weaver's Co-operative Society, Seeyamangalampettai Village & Post Kancheepuram District 4.Rathinavelu .... Respondents/Respondent

¶7

Write Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order in W.P.No.10078 of 2004 dated 11.12.2008 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

¶8

WP.NO.10078/2004:

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constituion of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first and Second respondents made in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(CO-OP)

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

NO.22/1999 dated 28.02.2004 and R.C.No.2071/98/C dated 03/11/1999 and quash the same.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.G.Devadoss For Respondent 1 : Tribunal For Respondent 2 : Mr.L.P.Shanmuga Sundaram Special Government Pleader For Respondent 3 : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi For Respondent 4 : No Appearance

¶13

J U D G E M E N T [Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.ASHA,J.]

¶14

This Intra-Court appeal is filed challenging the order passed in W.P.No.10078 of 2004. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the above Writ Appeal are as follows:

¶15

2.The Surcharge proceedings were intiated against the appellant under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, by an order dated 03.11.1999. The appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,46,702.39/-, which, according to the 2^nd respondent was the loss that was caused to the 3^rd respondent's Society on account of the credit sales that had been effected to one E.Rathinam.

¶16

3.The appellant herein had challenged the said order by filing C.M.A (Co-op) No.22/99 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. The learned District Judge by Judgement dated 28.02.2004, was pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the 2^nd respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the appellant had approached this Court by filing above Writ Petition.

¶17

4.The learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the Judgement reported in (2008) 8 MLJ 231 – S.V.K.Sahasramam Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai Circle, Tiruvannamalai and others, dismissed the Writ Petition. Challenging the said order the appellant is before this Court.

¶18

5.Meanwhile, it is seen that the said Rathinam had paid up the entire sum of Rs.6,25,000/-. It is also seen that the 3^rd respondent society had issued a final settlement receipt to the

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

said E.Rathinam stating that they have received the entire amount towards settlement and that they would not initiate any legal action against him. The said receipt has been issued on 13.04.2007.

¶21

6.Further in the appeal filed by the said V.Rathinavelu in C.M.A.No.70 of 2010 on the file of the District Judge, District Court-II, Kancheepuram (Special Tribunal for Co-operative cases), the learned Judge had passed an order that since the entire amout had been paid by the said Rathinam there was no further liability against the appellant herein as well as the person who was arrayed as 3^rd respondent there and that the entire due had been settled.

¶22

7.In the light of the facts narrated above and the 3^rd respondent Society having received the entire amount, as also the order in C.M.A.No.70 of 2010 having attained finality, the 3^rd respondent Society cannot proceed further against the appellant.

¶23

8.The learned counsel for the appellant had produced the letter dated 21.06.2019, wherein the 3^rd respondent had demanded a sum of Rs.1,69,972.39 towards the dues.

¶24

9.In view of the categoric finding given by the learned District Judge, in C.M.A.No.70 of 2010 the 3^rd respondent cannot be permitted to proceed further with the letter dated 21.06.2019.

¶25

The Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed in the Writ Petition is set aside. There shall be no order as to Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

kan

¶31

To,