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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
M/S. KECHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE ADDL./JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 47807 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.K.KRISHNA, SHRI.ACHYUTH MENON, SHRI. V. HARISANKAR, SMT.ANNA ANTO
For the Respondents: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SHRI.P.R.AJITH KUMAR

The violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of hearing before the dismissal of an appeal necessitates reconsideration.

Headnote:The petitioner, a Service Co-operative Bank, challenged the dismissal of their appeal by the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, citing lack of an opportunity to be heard as grounds. The court found the decision of the Appellate Authority violated principles of natural justice and quashed it. The court mandated a reconsideration of the appeal with a hearing. The ended directive was for fast-tracked reconstruction of the appeal process.

Table of Content
1. service co-operative bank registered under kerala law. (Para 1)
2. counsel heard, appeal details discussed. (Para 2)
3. violation of natural justice established. (Para 3)
4. order quashed, directive for re-hearing. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Service Co-operative Bank registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969. The grievance of the petitioner highlighted in this writ petition is against Ext.P10 Order passed by the nd

2 respondent Appellate Authority, on the appeal submitted by the petitioner. The said appeal was submitted being aggrieved by Ext.P4 Order of penalty. According to the petitioner, the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P10 without providing an opportunity for being heard. The challenge was raised by way of writ petition in such circumstances.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. On perusal of Ext.P10, it is seen that, before the disposal of the appeal, only one notice was issued on 31.10.2025 which was for filing written submission in support of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is an admitted position that such written submission was filed by the petitioner in response to the same. However, apart from the above, no opportunity for personal hearing was extended to the petitioner.

4. On going through Ext.P10 Order, it is seen that the conclusions were arrived at based on the contents of the written submission alone. Thus it is evident that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P10 Order rejecting the appeal was passed by the Appellate Authority, without hearing the petitioner and thus it is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore the matter requires re-consideration.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing nd Ext.P10 with a direction to the 2 respondent to re-consider Ext.P5 Appeal submitted by the petitioner after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible. The respondent shall offer every facility to the petitioner to provide an opportunity for being heard.

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top