Allowed¶28

A. Ganeshwari v. the Deputy Registrar of

Madras HC2 Sept 2025WP(MD)/19468/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorari quashing co-operative surcharge demand notice; attachment of wife's (third-party) property for husband's debt held impermissible; Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1983, Sections 81 and 87; surcharge of Rs.8,00,530 with 15% per annum interest; enquiry report 26.05.2008 on 36 members' loans; Tribunal for Co-operative cases Karur dismissed C.M.A.CS.No.1 of 2012 on 31.07.2014; stay in husband's W.P.No.4983 of 2015; sale deed 19.12.2007 Doc.No.8205 of 2007; Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies Karur Circle; Ni.Ma.No.01/2015-2016; Madurai Bench, Justice P.T. Asha, decided 02.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari granted: the demand notice dated 19.08.2015 made in Ni.Ma.No.01/2015-2016 is set aside; writ petition allowed with no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015) closed. ¶28

A. Ganeshwari Vs the Deputy Registrar of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the demand notice dated 19.08.2015 made in Ni.Ma.No.01/2015-2016, by which the respondent sought to recover the petitioner's husband's surcharge liability by attaching and selling property exclusively belonging to the petitioner, is sustainable and should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

Court's answer

Since the scheduled property was purchased by the petitioner herself (sale deed dated 19.12.2007, Doc.No.8205/2007) and admittedly does not belong to her husband, the respondent cannot mulct the husband's surcharge liability upon the petitioner or proceed against that property.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

In the circumstances narrated, the writ petition deserves to be and is allowed, and the demand notice is set aside; no costs; the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) — P.T. Asha, J. — W.P.(MD)No.19468 of 2015 (02.09.2025): Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 quashing a demand notice dated 19.08.2015 (Ni.Ma.No.01/2015-2016) issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Karur Circle, which sought to attach and sell property belonging to the petitioner-wife for recovery of her husband's surcharge liability of Rs.8,00,530/- plus 15% per annum interest. The liability arose from surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, following a Section 81 enquiry into non-recovery of long overdue loans (report dated 26.05.2008 concerning 36 members); the husband's C.M.A.CS.No.1 of 2012 was dismissed on 31.07.2014 and his W.P.No.4983 of 2015 enjoyed a stay of further proceedings. The petitioner held a sale deed dated 19.12.2007 (Doc.No.8205/2007) showing the scheduled property exclusively belonged to her; her objection drew no response. Holding that the respondent cannot mulct the husband's liability upon the petitioner nor proceed against property admittedly not his, the court allowed the petition, set aside the demand notice, imposed no costs, and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 02.09.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.19468 of 2015 and

¶6

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶7

A.Ganeshwari ...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Karur Circle, Having office at 149, Anna Nagar, Thanthonimalai Post, Karur Town, Karur District.

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand notice dated 19.08.2015, made in Ni.Ma.No.01/2015-2016, issued by the respondent and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj

¶13

For Respondent : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader

¶14

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the demand notice dated 19.08.2015 made in Ni.Ma.No.01/2015-16, issued by the respondent.

¶19

2.It is her grievance that her husband, namely, K.Annamalai, entered into service of the L.N.Samudram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited on 16.02.1977 as a Clerk. He was subsequently promoted as an Accountant and finally promoted as a Secretary(in-charge) which post he hold only from November 2003 to 2012, when he had superannuated.

¶20

3.It appears that the respondent has ordered an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and appointed the Enquiry Officer to consider the charge that no recovery proceedings were initiated for long overdue loans. On 26.05.2008, the report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer and in the said report, he had detailed the omissions and commissions noticed by him while processing the loan application and sanctioning of the loan in respect of 36 members. Thereafter, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner's husband under Section 87 of the Act.

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

4.By an order dated 06.09.2010, the petitioner husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,530/- together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. As against the same, the petitioner's husband has filed C.M.A.CS.No.1 of 2012, on the file of the Tribunal for Co-operative cases, Karur. The Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on 31.07.2014, thereby confirming the order passed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner's husband filed W.P.No.4983 of 2015, and in the said Writ Petition, the petitioner had also sought for stay of all further proceedings which was granted to him.

¶24

5.Pending stay, the respondent has issued a demand notice, dated 06.09.2010, wherein they had directed the petitioner husband to pay the surcharge amount with interest within 10 days failing which, the property described therein would be attached and brought for sale. The property which is being described in the schedule to this notice exclusively belongs to the petitioner herein. The petitioner had also sent objection to the respondent. However, there is no response from the respondent therein. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition.

¶25

3/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

6.The petitioner has annexed the sale deed dated 19.12.2007, registered as document No.8205 of 2007, under which the petitioner herein had purchased the subject property. This very same property is sought to be attached under the impugned demand notice. Mere comparison of the property described in the schedule to the demand notice as well as the schedule to the sale deed dated 19.12.2007, will clearly confirm the same. Therefore, the respondent cannot mulct the liability of the husband upon the petitioner and proceed against the property which is admittedly not her husband's property.

¶28

7.Therefore, in the given circumstances, as narrated supra, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed and the demand notice is hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶29

02.09.2025

¶30

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR

¶31

4/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

¶34

The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Karur Circle, Having office at 149, Anna Nagar, Thanthonimalai Post, Karur Town, Karur District.

¶35

5/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶38

RJR

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.19468 of 2015

¶40

02.09.2025

¶41

6/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Demand notice dated 19.08.2015 made in Ni.Ma.No.01/2015-2016 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Karur Circle, directing payment of the petitioner's husband's surcharge amount with interest within 10 days, failing which the scheduled property would be attached and brought for sale; sought to be quashed.¶11
Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Karur Circle · 19.08.2015
Prior proceeding
Respondent ordered an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and appointed an Enquiry Officer to consider the charge that no recovery proceedings were initiated for long overdue loans.¶20
Prior proceeding
Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 26.05.2008, detailing omissions and commissions noticed while processing and sanctioning loans in respect of 36 members.¶20
Prior proceeding
Surcharge proceedings were thereafter initiated against the petitioner's husband under Section 87 of the Act.¶20
Prior proceeding
By order dated 06.09.2010, the petitioner's husband was directed to pay Rs.8,00,530/- together with interest at 15% per annum.¶23
Prior proceeding
The husband filed C.M.A.CS.No.1 of 2012 before the Tribunal for Co-operative cases, Karur, against the surcharge order.¶23
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 31.07.2014, confirming the order passed by the respondent.¶23
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved, the husband filed W.P.No.4983 of 2015, in which stay of all further proceedings was sought and granted.¶23
Prior proceeding
Pending stay, the respondent issued a demand notice (printed in the judgment as dated 06.09.2010) directing the husband to pay the surcharge amount with interest within 10 days, failing which the scheduled property would be attached and brought for sale.¶24
Prior proceeding
The property described in the schedule to the demand notice exclusively belongs to the petitioner herself, not to her husband.¶24
Prior proceeding
The petitioner sent an objection to the respondent, but received no response.¶24
Prior proceeding
The petitioner annexed a sale deed dated 19.12.2007 registered as Document No.8205 of 2007, under which she purchased the subject property; comparison of the schedules confirms it is the same property sought to be attached.¶27

A. Ganeshwari v. the Deputy Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Ganeshwari v. the Deputy Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Khadhar Batcha Vs The Commissioner

Louthusamy Enterprises Vs The Executive Officer

K.Pandi Vs The General Manager

T.Raj Thevar, Vs the Secretary, Sivakasi Govt.

Selvalakshmi, Vs the Superintending Engineer

C.Meyyar Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu