In three civil revision petitions challenging the quashing of surcharge orders due to statute-barred limitation, a single-judge bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the petitions. The Society appealed the Tribunal's decision that mandated proceedings within seven years of detection.
No order as to costs.
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.
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.376, 377 and 395 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT.
Dated : 06.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRP(MD).Nos.376, 377 and 395 of 2016
C.R.P.(MD).No.376 of 2016
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Full Additional Charge) Anna Nagar, Thanthonimalai Karur ... Petitioner Vs. K.Murugasan ...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India to allow the revision and set aside the order passed in C.M.A.(CS) No.3 of 2011 dated 31.07.2014, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur and to confirm the order of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies Karur dated 06.09.2010 passed in Na.Ka.No.2020/2009.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Public Prosecutor For Respondent : No appearance
1/8
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.376, 377 and 395 of 2016
C.R.P.(MD).No.377 of 2016
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Full Additional Charge) Anna Nagar, Thanthonimalai Karur ... Petitioner Vs.
R.Rama Devudu ...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India to allow the revision and set aside the order passed in C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2011 dated 31.07.2014, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur and to confirm the order of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies Karur dated 06.09.2010 passed in Na.Ka.No.2020/2009.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Public Prosecutor For Respondent :
C.R.P.(MD).No.395 of 2016
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Full Additional Charge) Anna Nagar, Thanthonimalai Karur ... Petitioner
2/8
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.376, 377 and 395 of 2016
1.K.Arivumani
2.K.Veeramani
...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India to allow the revision and set aside the order passed in C.M.A.(CS) No.9 of 2011 dated 31.07.2014, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur and to confirm the order of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies Karur dated 06.09.2010 passed in Na.Ka.No.2020/2009.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Public Prosecutor For Respondents : Mr.M.Palaniraja
COMMON ORDER
This Civil Revision Case has been filed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Thanthonimalai Karur, as against the orders passed in C.M.A.(CS) Nos.3, 6 and 9 of 2011 respectively, dated 31.07.2014, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur to confirm the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Karur dated 06.09.2010 passed in Na.Ka.No. 2020/2009.
3/8
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.376, 377 and 395 of 2016
3.Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the proceedings was initiated belatedly is not a ground to set aside the surcharge proceedings and the loan was granted without verification of loan documents and therefore there was misappropriation. The same was not properly considered by the learned Tribunal Judge and hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned order.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the loan was properly granted as per the resolution passed by the society and therefore, there
4/8
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.376, 377 and 395 of 2016
was no wilful or deliberate or ommisson done by the paid servants to face the surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. In this case, the order was passed after expiry of the period of limitation. For one of the co-employee surcharge order was quashed in C.M.A.No.6 of 2011. Therefore, the learned Tribunal Judge has considered the above aspect and allowed the C.M.A., by setting the aside the surcharge order passed by the petitioner and there is no ground to interfere with the same and hence, he seeks to confirm the impugned order.
5.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record and the precedents relied upon by them.
6.The respondents are said to have misappropriated the fund of the Society during the period 01.09.1996 to 24.05.2001. Hence, Surcharge Proceedings was initiated against the respondents with allegation that they had committed misappropriation of amount of Rs.10,77,931/- and surcharge order was passed on 06.09.2010.The learned Judge has also held that there was no wilful, deliberate or ommission done by the paid servants. The loan was granted to the
5/8
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.376, 377 and 395 of 2016
members as per the resolution upon scrutinization of all the records. The order of surcharge order has been issued mechanically and before passing the order, the society has not established the wilful, deliberate and ommission on the part of the paid servants and the same has been fortified by the Hon'ble Division Bench Judgement of this Court reported in 2009 4 MLJ 992. This Court finds no error in the said finding.
Apart from that, the order was passed on 31.07.2014. As per the law of precedent, the surcharge proceedings under Section 87(1) has to be initiated within a period of seven years from the date of the detection of the misappropriation. In this case, the occurrence had happened during the period of 01.11.1996 to 24.05.2001. Therefore, the surcharge order was passed after the lapse of the period of limitation. Hence, the Co-operative Tribunal/Principal District Court correctly allowed the C.M.A., and dismissed the recovery order passed under Section 87(1) of the Act against the respondents by order dated 06.09.2010. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petitions lacks merit and the same are liable to be dismissed.
6/8
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.376, 377 and 395 of 2016
be no order as to costs.
06.03.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No sbn
To
7/8
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.376, 377 and 395 of 2016
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
CRP(MD).Nos.376, 377 and 395 of 2016
06.03.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 challenging the quashing of surcharge orders due to expiry of limitation period deserve allowance?
Whether the initiation of surcharge proceedings within seven years of detection of misappropriation was rendered time-barred by the composition of alleged misappropriation occurring between 1996 and 2
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2009 4 MLJ 992Explained¶46
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Full Additional Charge) Anna Nagar, Thanthonimalai Karur
K.Murugasan
R.Rama Devudu
1.K.Arivumani
2.K.Veeramani
K.K.Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
