Dismissed

M.Santhiagu Joseph v. the Deputy Registrar

Madras HC11 Mar 2020CRP(MD)/1891/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging the decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. The Court held that the findings of the intermediate tribunals were supported by documents and reasoned correctly, finding petitioners guilty of causing loss to the cooperative society.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

M.Santhiagu Joseph Vs the Deputy Registrar — Madras HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1891 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1891 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012

¶3

1.M.Santhiagu Joseph 2.M.Navaneetha Krishnan 3.M.Prakash 4.V.Leelavathy : Petitioners/Appellants 1,2,4 & 5/ Respondents 2,4,5 & 7

¶4

.. Vs ..

¶5

1.The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Deputy Registrar Office, Bryant Nagar 3^rd Street, Thoothukudi : 1^st Respondent/1^st Respondent/Plaintiff

¶6

2.N.Murugan 3.S.Mariappan 4.K.Saroja 5.C.Karuvelamuthu 6.N.Ganesan : Respondents 2 to 6/Respondents 2-6/ Respondents 1,6,8,10 & 11 7.S.Serma Ponraj 8.P.Sivakumar : Respondents 7 & 8/Appellants 2 & 6/ Respondents 3 & 9

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the decree and judgment passed in C.M.A.(CS) No.2 of 2009, dated 22.03.2012, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, confirming the orders passed in Tha.Va.No.2 of 2008, dated 09.09.2008, on the file of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Thoothukudi.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman For Respondent 1 : Mr.D.Muruganandam Additional Government Pleader For Respondents 2 – 7 : No appearance Respondent 8 - Dismissed for default vide order dated 24.08.2015. - - - - -

¶9

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

¶10

1/3

¶11

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1891 of 2012

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Out of seven charges framed against the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition, it is admitted that four charges are proved and three charges are dropped. The charges against the petitioners which are proved are relating to causing loss to the society by negligence and by certain irregularities committed by the petitioners, who were in the helm of office in the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Eral, during their term. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies initiated surcharge proceedings and found that the petitioners are guilty of charges causing loss to the society. The Deputy Registrar has given a specific finding that the charges, which were held as proved, are supported by documents and reasonings. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi, in C.M.A. (CS) No.2 of 2009. The said appeal was also dismissed holding that the revision petitioners alone are to be held liable for the misappropriation or irregularities committed by them. The Tribunal also found that the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies has properly conducted enquiry.

¶14

2.Having regard to the admitted facts and the materials produced before the first respondent and before this Court, this Court is unable to take a different view than that was taken by the Tribunal in C.M.A.(CS) No.2 of 2009. The findings of the Tribunal are supported by documents and materials. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is unable to point out any serious error or irregularity either in appreciation of facts or events or in the conclusions or in the decision making process, particularly, the reasonings while dismissing the appeal. This Court need not reappreciate the whole evidence to find out whether there is any possibility of an alternative. The findings of the Tribunal is not demonstrated to be false, incorrect or erroneous with reference to materials on facts. In such circumstances, this Court has no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

// True Copy //

¶16

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶17

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

¶18

2/3

¶19

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1891 of 2012

¶20

SRM

¶21

¶22

1.The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.

¶23

2.The Deputy Registrar,

¶24

Cooperative Societies,

¶25

Deputy Registrar Office,

¶26

Bryant Nagar 3^rd Street,

¶27

Thoothukudi. +1 CC to M/s.K.R.LAXMAN, Advocate ( SR-11272[F] dated 12/03/2020 )

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-11341[F] dated 12/03/2020 )

¶29

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1891 of 2012

¶30

Dated: 11.03.2020

¶31

PU(07/05/2020) 3 P 5C

¶32

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

¶33

3/3

M.Santhiagu Joseph v. the Deputy Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Santhiagu Joseph v. the Deputy Registrar

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

R. Mathaiyan Vs Ramu

Karnamaharajan (Died) Vs Kalaiyarasi

S.Basith Ibrahim Vs Syndicate Bank

Rengaraj Vs Veeran

Balasubramanian Vs Sundararajan

Piyari Begum Vs Dr.a.a.Hakkim(Dentist)