CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1988) 07 KAR CK 0026

Bangalore Horticultural Producers Marketing and Processing Co-operative Society Limited vs Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 4 July 1988 · Citation: (1989) 66 CompCas 707 : (1988) 2 KarLJ 217

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.P. Chandrakantaraj, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 361 words
1.

This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Bangalore Horticultural Producers Marketing and Processing Co-operative Society Ltd., challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in revision petition No. 66 of 1987, disposed of on January 27, 1988.

2.

Apart from the delay in approaching this court for relief, one is surprised that the petitioner has approached this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India at all.

3.

The facts leading to the writ petition may be stated and they are as follows:

4.

The 3rd respondent raised a dispute which came to be referred to the 1st respondent. The substance of the dispute was that the petitioner-co- operative society owned certain sums of money to the 3rd respondent (before the arbitrator), the 1st respondent in this court. Certain documents which included the resolution book and account books were directed to be produced before the arbitrator. Against that order of the arbitrator directing the production of certain documents, a revision was preferred inter alia contending that the resolution book was a confidential document document and so could not be produced and that the accounts for the relevant year had been audited and, therefore, they were not available with the petitioner-co-operative society. The Tribunal has held that the resolution book of the above society is not a confidential document and it has held also that there was no reason why the books of account should not be presumed to be in the possession of the co-operative society when there was no averment as to why they were not with it. Therefore, it dismissed the revision petition.

5.

This court agrees with the Appellate Tribunal. The resolution book is not a confidential document. Completion of audit does not mean that the books of account are consigned to records at any place other than the office of the co-operative society under any of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act or the Rules made thereunder. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction or anything of the kind which calls for interference.

6.

This petition is misconceived and it is rejected.