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

2022 Supreme(Ker) 572

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.Suresh Kumar, P.V.Kunhikrishnan, C.S. Sudha, JJ.
Jalaja Gopan – Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General) and ors. – Respondents
WA No. 2266 of 2018
Decided On : 07-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. K.S. Anil, Sri. Arjun Raghavan, Amicus Curiae

Headnote:

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969 - Sections 69(2)(c), 70A, Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 69(1) , Sub-section (3) of Section 28 (A) and 80 - Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rule 44 (2)(c) - Disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar - Default in repaying the loan - Availed a personal loan - award - Appellant in writ appeal was a member of Managing Committee and also elected President Service Co-operative Bank - She was elected as a member of Managing Committee - Much before she contested in election, i.e., in year appellant availed a personal loan from the 3rd respondent Bank - Since there was a default in repaying the loan, 3rd respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings by filing A.R.C. award was passed in favour of appellant was also a surety for her sister who availed a loan from the 3rd respondent Bank and same also resulted in another arbitration proceedings - Award was passed against the appellant as surety - Joint Registrar, as per Ext.P15 order produced in the writ petition, disqualified appellant from being elected as a member of the Managing Committee of the Bank under Rule 44 (2)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 and it was declared that she shall cease to be a member of Managing Committee under Rule 44(3) of Rules – Held, we are of the view that reference to the disqualification under Rule 44(1)(c) in those cases can only be for the application of legal fiction provided under Rule 44(2), in terms of which the member of the committee would cease to hold his office as such. In other words, expression “is in default” used in Rule 44(1)(c) cannot have any bearing on the proceedings provided for under Rule 44(3) for declaration of the disqualification of the member concerned with effect from the date of disqualification - As regards a case falling under Rule 44(2)(a), the expression “is in default” refers to date on which the member concerned became disqualified, and as regards a case falling under Rule 44(2)(c), the expression “is in default” refers to date on which the member concerned is elected - Notice issued to defaulter before he is elected as a member of the society can be treated as notice under the proviso to Rule 44(2)(c) is not the correct law and a fresh notice under the proviso to Rule 44(2)(c) - writ appeal for final hearing as per roster – Ordered Accordingly.

ORDER :

Kunhikrishnan, J.

The following points are referred to Full Bench as per the reference order dated 29.11.2018 by a Division Bench of this court :

1. Can a member elected to the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society be unseated by resort to Rule 44(2)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 otherwise than by calling in question his election by a dispute under Section 69(2)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969?

2. Whether the Bench decision in Surendran Nair v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 407) on the question of disqualification under Rule 44(2)(c) of the Rules is correctly decided?

2. Brief facts of the case are like this:

The appellant in the writ appeal was a member of the Managing Committee and also the elected President of Punukannur Service Co-operative Bank (‘the Bank’ for short). She was elected as a member of the Managing Committee on 02.07.2017. Much before she contested in the election, i.e., in the year 2013, the appellant availed a personal loan from the 3rd respondent Bank. Since there was a default in repaying the loan, the 3rd respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings by filing A.R.C. No.42 of 2013 and an award was passed in favour of the Bank on 20.06.2017. Moreover, the appellant was also a surety for her sister who availed a loan from the 3rd respondent Bank and the same also resulted in another arbitration proceedings. Consequently, an award was passed against the appellant as surety on 20.06.2017 in A.R.C. No.41 of 2013 also. The Joint Registrar, as per Ext.P15 order produced in the writ petition, disqualified the appellant from being elected as a member of the Managing Committee of the Bank under Rule 44 (2)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter mentioned as ‘Rules’) and it was declared that she shall cease to be a member of the Managing Committee under Rule 44(3) of the Rules. The appellant challenged Ext.P15 before this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.36326 of 2018. The same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed. The Division Bench, after hearing both sides, referred this matter to the Full Bench for the resolution of the points framed in the reference order dated 29.11.2018.

3. The points referred by the Division Bench as per the reference order dated 29.11.2018 are already extracted above. But, for deciding the above issues, certain ancillary points are also to be considered. A reading of the first point referred by the Division Bench will show that the full bench has to decide the scope of the powers of the Registrar concerned under Rule 44(2) (c) of the Rules and that of the authority mentioned in section 69(2)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969 (hereinafter mentioned as ‘Act’). So, whether the disqualification as per Rule 44(2)(c) of the Rules and the dispute resolution under Section 69(2)(c) of the Act are separate powers and whether a separate cause of action is necessary to invoke those power are also to be decided. Whether the disqualification proceedings under Rule 44(2)(c) is deemed to be accrued only after the expiry of a period of one month from the date of receipt of a notice from the society by the member concerned demanding him to clear off the defaulted amount specified therein and he fails to remit or cause to remit the amount within the said period is also a point to be decided by the Full Bench. Yet another point to be decided is whether the notice issued to a defaulter long before the proceedings are initiated under Rule 44(3) can be treated as notice under the proviso to Rule 44(2)(c)? When disqualification proceedings are initiated to disqualify a person under Rule 44(2) (c), whether he should be a defaulter at the time when such proceedings are initiated is also to be decided. Therefore, we are framing the following points for resolution:

    1. Can a member elected to the Managing Committee of a co-operative society be 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