High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 09 KL CK 0347

P. Chandran vs The Kadalundi Service Co-operative and The Joint Registrar of Co-operative

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 28 September 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 1879 of 2010 (H)

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

8 paragraphs · 369 words

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P3 order passed by the Joint Registrar(General), whereby an application filed to lift the attachment of the immovable properties of the petitioner was rejected for the reason that the award of the Assistant Registrar (General), Kozhikode is under challenge before the Co-operative Tribunal.

2.

The petitioner was the Secretary-in-charge of the 1st respondent-Bank. The Chief Accountant of the Bank had committed certain financial irregularities. The bank filed A.R.C. No. 12/92-93 claiming various amounts jointly from both the defendants. Exhibit P2 shows that the Award is only against the 1st defendant and he is made liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,38,606/-, towards the loss sustained with interest at the rate of 12% on the principal amount from 28.2.1993. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Joint Registrar for lifting the attachment.

3.

The only reason stated in Exhibit P3 is that the appeal filed before the Co-operative Tribunal is pending and the Assistant Registrar reported that the appeal has not been disposed of.

4.

In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is averred that an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal. But, after receipt of the notice in the Writ Petition, it is revealed that the Tribunal has rejected the appeal A.R.C. No. 45/04; but no notice was issued to the bank or its counsel and the bank has made arrangements to restore the proceedings against the petitioner.

5.

The learned Counsel for the bank submitted that the restoration petition is still pending. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal itself was filed only after the filing of the present Writ Petition by the petitioner herein.

6.

Whatever that be, if the appeal has been rejected, it is a matter for consideration by the Joint Registrar (General).

7.

In that view of the matter, Exhibit P3 will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the Joint Registrar (General), Kozhikode to reconsider the matter, with notice to the petitioner and the 1st respondent-bank and appropriate fresh orders will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.