Dismissed

M.Jaipal Reddy v. The Commissioner for Cooperative and Registrar

Telangana HC29 Apr 2013WP/13451/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged attachment and sale notices issued against his brother's property arising from a surcharge order. The court held that a subsequent resolution by the society could not supersede the final surcharge order and dismissed the petition, allowing the brother to seek appropriate remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner's brother to file a claim petition under Rule 52(21) of the AP Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964.

M.Jaipal Reddy Vs The Commissioner for Cooperative and… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13451 of 2013

Date:29.04.2012

Between:

M.Jaipal Reddy

.. Petitioner

and

The Commissioner for Cooperative and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad and others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Counsel for petitioner: Sri G.V.Shivaji

¶10

Counsel for respondents: Government Pleader for Cooperation

¶11

The Court made the following:-

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the proceedings of respondent No.2, whereby he has issued notices of attachment and sale of immovable properties to the petitioner.

¶14

It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the surcharge order was passed as far back as 31.07.2006 holding that the petitioner is responsible for the amounts drawn by the members of the society of which the petitioner was the President. It is also his pleaded case that out of a sum of Rs.99,990/- for which the surcharge order was passed, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by his wife in February and March, 2008 and that on 20.04.2012, a resolution was passed by the General Body of the society itself that the loss stated to have been incurred by the society was properly recovered from the borrowers and that therefore, the petitioner is not liable for payment of the balance amount.

¶15

On the petitioner’s own showing the surcharge order has become final. Therefore, even assuming that the General Body of the society has passed a resolution, the same does not have the effect of superceding the surcharge order. The petitioner could have filed an appeal against the surcharge order under Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Having allowed the surcharge order to become final, the petitioner cannot fall back upon the purported resolution of the General Body of the society. At any rate, the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is seeking to proceed against the property of his brother. If that is so, it is the petitioner’s brother, who has locus to question the proposed action of respondent No.2 by filing a claim petition under Rule 52(21) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964. Interestingly, the petitioner’s brother has not even joined the petitioner in questioning

¶16

the impugned notices of attachment and sale of immovable properties.

¶17

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner’s brother to avail the abovementioned remedy.

¶18

As a sequel to dismissing the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.16491 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶20

29^th April, 2013 GHN

M.Jaipal Reddy v. The Commissioner for Cooperative and Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jaipal Reddy v. The Commissioner for Cooperative and Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soma Venkata Rao, Vs Velamuri China Ayyapa Reddy

Smt. E. Indira Reddy Vs The Gram Panchayat Manikonda (v)

B. Narasimha Reddy, Ranga Reddy District Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Special Grade Deputy

A.M.Naveen, S/o A.M. Munirathnam Mudaliar Vs State Transport Authority

Thati Prameela Vs The District Collector (Panchayat Wing)

S.Bhoomakka, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh