Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE VENKATASWAMI
E. Ambalam Sakthivel Thever..Petitioner in both the C.R.Ps.
Versus
Secretary, Q. 1253 Nagarkudi Respondent in 1st Co-op. Agricultural Credit Society
Civil Revison Petition Nos. 3214 and 3215 of 1984
Decided On :Decided on : 01-09-1990
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - SURCHARGE - WILFUL NEGLIGENCE - INTERPRETATION - SHIFTING OF PROCEEDINGS FROM SECTION 71 TO SECTION 73 OF THE TAMIL NADU CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1961 - JUSTIFICATION - LEGAL PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the President of a cooperative society, was held liable for a surcharge for a cash balance deficiency found at the time of the society's supersession. The petitioner challenged the surcharge order, arguing that the society had no right to proceed under section 73 of the Act after initiating proceedings under section 71, that the Secretary should have been impleaded as a party, and that the findings of the Tribunal were insufficient to establish his liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the shifting of proceedings from section 71 to section 73 of the Act was not justified, as the society had already exhausted its power by inviting a decision from the Registrar under section 73. The court also held that the findings of the Tribunal were insufficient to establish the petitioner's liability for the surcharge, as there was no nexus between the petitioner and the alleged loss/deficiency. The court further held that the Secretary should have been impleaded as a party, especially in light of the findings of the Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the society had the right to proceed under section 73 of the Act after initiating proceedings under section 71? 2. Whether the Secretary should have been impleaded as a party? 3. Whether the findings of the Tribunal were sufficient to establish the petitioner's liability for the surcharge?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the shifting of proceedings from section 71 to section 73 of the Act was not justified, as the society had already exhausted its power by inviting a decision from the Registrar under section 73. The court relied on the decision in 1979 (1) M.L.J. page 6, where it was held that once a decision is rendered by the appropriate statutory authority under one provision of the Act, a resurrection of the same subject matter through another available remedy contemplated in the same enactment would lead to a violation of principles of natural justice and the accepted canons of common law. 2. The court held that the Secretary should have been impleaded as a party, especially in light of the findings of the Tribunal. The court noted that the Tribunal had found that the Secretary was responsible for the loss/deficiency, and that the petitioner had no nexus with the alleged loss/deficiency. The court held that in these circumstances, the Secretary was a necessary party to the proceedings. 3. The court held that the findings of the Tribunal were insufficient to establish the petitioner's liability for the surcharge. The court noted that the Tribunal had not established any connection between the petitioner and the alleged loss/deficiency, and that the petitioner had not signed any of the incriminating documents. The court held that these findings were insufficient to sustain the surcharge order.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and allowed the petitioner's Civil Revision Petition. There was no order as to costs.
These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a common order of the special Tribunal, Cooperative Societies, Madurai, in C.M.A. Nos. 161 of 1981 and 89 of 1982 respectively.
2. Though notice was served on the respondents, the Society has not taken any steps to contest the matter. None appears for the respondent-Society.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of these two Civil Revision Petitions are the following:—
The petitioner was the President of Q. 1253 Nagarakudi Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society (hereinafter called ‘the Society’) from 6-3-1968 till it was superseded in December 1977. As per by-Law No. 27 (1) (a) of the Society, the President was also the Treasurer of the Society. By a General Body resolution passed on 12-12-1977, the society was taken over under the control of Ramanathapuram District Co-operative Central Bank from 27-121977. As per the records, a cash balance of Rs. 10,207-03P. was av ailable. But the same was neither handed over nor remitted subsequent to the taking over, by the petitioner. Therefore, the said sum of Rs. 10,207-03. P. was debited against the petitioner. Inspite of repeated notices, the petitioner did not deposit any amount, but only sent replies which were not accepted by the officials. Hence theproceedings under section 7B of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 was initiated against the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivaganga by Droceeedings dated 29-7-1981, held that the respondent-Society has sustained the loss of Rs. 10,207.03 by way of cash balance as on 12-12-1977 and the petitioner was responsible for the said loss. Consequently, an award for a sum of Rs. 14,698-11. P. including interest was passed on 29-7-1981.
4. At this stage, it may be mentioned that on an earlier, occasion, for the deficiency/loss of Rs. 7,748.85. P. and award was passed against the petitioner in proceedings taken under section 71 of the Act by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sivaganga, on 19-12-1980. Against that order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, an appeal was filed, and the Co-operative Tribunal, by an order dated 29.6.1981 in C.M.A. No. 132 of 1981, has set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner. After remand, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by proceeedings, dated 28.5.1982, found that the proceedings taken on the earlier occasion for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,748-85. P. has been included in the subsequent recovery/surcharge proceedings for a sum of Rs. 10,207.03. P. and, therefore, no separate order was necessary, and on that ground, the proceedings were closed. Aggrieved by the closing/dismissing of the proceedings under section 71 of the Act, the Society preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 89242 of 1982 before the Cooperative Tribunal. The petitioner, aggrieved by the surcharge order for a sum of Rs. 14,698-11. P., has filed C.M.A. No. 161 of 1981. Both the C.M.As were heard and a common order was passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Madurai. Even thougn the appeal filed by the Society, namely C.M.A. No. 89242 of 1982 was dismissed by the Tribunal, it is not clear how the learned counsel for the petitioner also is not in a position to explain or justify the filing of a Revision (C.R.P. No. 3215242 of 1984) against the decree in C.M.A. No. 89 of 1982. In as much as C.M.A. No. 89242 of 1982 has been decided in favour of the petitioner by dismissing the appeal filed by the Society, C.R.P. No. 3215 of 1984 has been unnecessarily filed without application of mind. No argument was also advanced why as Revision petition has been filed against that. In the circumstances, C.R.P.No 3215 of 1984 is dismissed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while challenging the order in C.M.A. No. 161242 of 1981, submitted that the Society having taken steps to proceed under section 71 of the Act, has no rig
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
