Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
Arayoor Service Co operative Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vincent – Respondents
W.A. No.95 of 2024
Decided on : 18-01-2024
(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Sections 68(1) and 68(2) - Intra court appeal against the Single Bench judgment setting aside surcharge proceedings due to lack of individual liability fixation - The court upheld the remand for proper proceedings under Section 68(2) - The Registrar is directed to issue a fresh order within one month considering upcoming elections. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Legal Principles - The necessity of adhering to statutory provisions in fixing individual liability in surcharge proceedings was emphasized, ensuring compliance with the Act's requirements. (Paras 1-3)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the Single Bench's order that set aside the surcharge proceedings initiated under Section 68(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, citing improper fixation of individual liability.
Findings of Court:
The court found the remand by the Single Bench to be legal and justified, allowing for proper proceedings to be conducted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order under Section 68(2) was valid without proper individual liability fixation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the findings of the Single Bench were justified and emphasized the need for compliance with statutory provisions in surcharge proceedings.
Result: The Registrar is directed to pass a fresh order within one month.
JUDGMENT :
Amit Rawal, J.
1. The present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench whereby the order Ext.P9 passed under Section 68(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act initiating the surcharge proceedings against the person fixing the liability has been set aside on the ground that the order lacks the fixing of the individual liability as strictly as per the provisions of Section 68(1) and 68(2) of the Act.
2. The contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that whatever the reasons have already been noticed, while conducting the proceedings / enquiry under Section 68(1) may not be reiterated while passing the order under Section 68(2) of the Act.
3. We are of the view that the finding of the Single Bench by remanding the matter is perfectly legal and justified. At this stage counsel for the appellant seeks the liberty of this court to withdraw the writ petition with a request that the Registrar may pass the order by fixing the time line.
4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the Registrar would not be averse in adhering to any directions this Hon'ble Court deem it appropriate.
5. Let the Registrar take a call for passing a fresh order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment considering the fact that the elections of the Society is on anvil, on 24.2.2024.
The court upheld the necessity of proper individual liability fixation in surcharge proceedings under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements.
Liability under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act must be fixed individually, not jointly, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.
Surcharge proceedings under Section 68(2) of the KCS Act require specific findings on individual liability and compliance with statutory requirements. Liability cannot be fixed on deceased persons wi....
Court directs time-bound disposal of co-operative surcharge appeal with hearing and stays coercive recovery pending decision.
The court allows appeal against administrative orders when filed timely, emphasizing statutory procedures under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
A party's locus to challenge an administrative order is dependent on its direct involvement. A society cannot claim to be aggrieved by orders initiated by a bank without being a party to the proceedi....
A candidate is not disqualified from elections based on pending surcharge proceedings unless a formal order of surcharge is first issued.
The courts maintain that appeals under cooperative society statutes must be afforded a fair hearing before any recovery actions are taken.
A disqualification due to an order of surcharge applies to elections across all societies, not just the society involved.
If a respondent in an appeal does not choose to avail benefit of Rule 22 of Order 41, it is not obligatory for court to examine correctness of finding rendered against him in impugned judgment.
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
