Back
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Branch Manager – Appellant
Versus
Prabhu Trading Corporation – Respondent
ORDER :
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2023 passed in O.S. No.194/2020 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, defendant No.3 is before the Court.
2. Respondent No.1 herein, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, filed the suit seeking an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as damages to be recovered from defendants No.1 to 3 along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment to the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff also sought for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from writing, publishing or circulating any false or defamatory statements and objections about the plaintiff firm either before any government departments, business circles, friends and relatives, either through written objection or through news papers. The plaintiff further sought for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to tender an unconditional written apology to the plaintiff firm and to publish the same in the first page of daily news paper or in some prominent place.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a licensed trader and a proprietary concern running the business in the name and style of “M/s P
A suit for damages against a co-operative society or its officers regarding business matters requires mandatory notice under Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
A statutory notice under S.167 is not required if the dispute does not concern the co-operative society's business.
A cooperative society lacks locus standi to file a defamation complaint if the actual aggrieved party, namely its Managing Director, has not initiated the proceedings.
The court established that mutual agreements regarding compensation in the context of litigation are enforceable, and that the absence of a notice under Section 125 of the Societies Act does not prec....
Jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in challenging cooperative society actions under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act without prior notice as required by law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of a partnership concern under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, renders the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, inappli....
The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear disputes related to co-operative societies, which must first be referred to the Commission as mandated by the Co-operative Societies Act 1993.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
