SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 878

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Ahanya Milk Producers Co-Operative Society - Appellant 
Vs.
State Of Karnataka - Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 11408 Of 2025 (CS-RES)
Decided On : 02-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. M.R. Rajgopal., Sr. Advocate For Sri. H.N. Basavaraju., Adv.
For the Respondent:Sri. Shashi Kiran Shetty., AGA A/W Smt. Prathima Honnapur., AAG A/W Sri. Yogesh D. Naik., AGA, Sri. Jaykumar S. Patil., Sr. Advocate For Sri. Deviprasad Shetty., Advocate Sri. Dr. Ravishankar., Sr. Advocate For Sri. S. Saravana., Adv.

The court determined that the specific procedure under Rule 6 applies to registrar-directed amendments to cooperative society bye-laws, requiring only a majority vote without deliberation, affirming adherence to statutory voting requirements.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 - Sub-sections 5 and 6 of Section 12 - Procedure for amendment of bye-laws - Petitioners challenged the resolution and order of the registrar regarding the amendment of bye-laws in a special general meeting - The registrar's authority to direct amendments under Section 12 was at the center of the controversy - Court held that the specific procedure under Rule 6 governs amendments directed by the registrar, and the general meeting could not deviate from it. (Paras 19.1-19.30)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Denial of opportunity to express objections during resolution vote led to allegations of violation of principles of natural justice, but the court found that the required vote and procedure had been lawfully adhered to. (Para 21.1-21.10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed that the procedure for voting on a resolution concerning the amendment of the bye-laws was flawed due to the lack of deliberation and recording of objections, alleging malafide conduct by the managing authorities.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the registrar's proposed amendments were sufficiently considered by the general body meeting, and the required voting procedure was appropriately followed.

Issues: (1) The applicability of procedures under Rule 14 AJ(12) versus Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 for special meetings; (2) Whether petitioners possessed alternative remedies under Sections 70 and 106 of the KCS Act; (3) Grounds for interference with the contested resolution.

Ratio Decidendi: The resolution adhered to the stipulated voting procedure, whereby only the votes counted from present members were considered valid for establishing the two-thirds majority. The requirement for deliberation under Rule 14 AJ(12) was not applicable in this context.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek to quash proceedings. (Para 1)
2. facts regarding the bifurcation and order history. (Para 2)
3. court observes consent to use video evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
4. video evidence considered admissible despite lack of certification. (Para 7)
5. petitioners argue procedural violations during meetings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
6. arguments regarding alternative remedies and legal processes. (Para 12 , 13)
7. court evaluates petitions and opposing arguments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
8. points of consideration identified for judgment. (Para 17)
9. court distinguishes between voluntary and registrar-directed amendments. (Para 18)
10. court's final decision and reasoning. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The Petitioners in each of the above petitions are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

W.P.No.11433/2025

a. Call for the entire records including the video clips from the hands of the R3 administrator in related to the impugned proceedings as per Annexure-K dated 13.03.2025.

b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the proceedings of the general body dated 13.03.2025 in so far as it relates to subject No.4 as per Annexure-K and also the certification by the registrar in terms of the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 in No.JRB/Bye-Law/Thiddupadi-28/2024-2025 as per Annexure-L.

c. Issue any appropriate order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition in the ends of justice and equity.

W.P.No.11408/2025;

a. Issue a writ or certiorari to quash the resolution dated 13.03.2025 passed by the R4 (produced as Annexure-A).

b. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.03.2025 bearing No. JRB/Amendment-2/2024-2025 passed by the R3 (produced as Annexure-B).

c. Pass such other orders or directions as deem fit by this Hon’ble Court including awarding the costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The background and facts in both the above petitions are more or less similar. The same is narrated as below;

2.1. The Petitioners in both matters are Primary Societies who are members of the Respondent No.4-Union. The Union was earlier called Kolara-Chikkaballapura District Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited with its area of operation in Kolar and Chikkaballapura. Respondent No.3-Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (JRCS) had passed an order on 22.06.2022 bifurcating the Union as Kolar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union (hereinafter referred to as ‘Kolar Society’) having its territorial jurisdiction as Kolar District. The Chikkaballapur District Co- operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Chikkaballapur Society’) having its jurisdiction over Chikkaballapur District.

2.2. Thereafter, the said order came to be withdrawn on 25.06.2023, restoring both the Unions to the original position of Kolara- Chikkaballapur District Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited. The JRCS on 25.09.2024 withdrew the order dated 25.06.2023 again bringing back to force the bifurcation as indicated above.

2.3. Pursuant to the order dated 25.09.2024, administrators were appointed to the Kolar Society and Chikkaballapur Society, after the bifurcation, the JRCS appointed administrators to the Union and issued the approved bye-laws of the Union on 22.06.2022. Bye-law 14 thereof provides for 13 directors with the representation of 6 directors from the 6 talukas of Kolar.

2.4. The Respondent No.5-Managing Director of the Kolar Society had addressed a letter on 28.10.2024 requesting the JRCS to amend Rule 14.2 of the Bye-laws of the Kolar Union. Thereafter, the JRCS had issued a direction under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959(hereinafter referred to as ‘KCS Act’) proposing amendment to Clause 14 and 14.1 of the bye-laws of the Kolar Union and thereafter had passed an order on 29.11.2024 u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top