High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 01 KL CK 0039

THE KARUVANTHIRUTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ANR. vs K.T. SUNIL KUMAR & ORS.

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 15 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil K.Narendran
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
26455 of 2017

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

16 paragraphs · 273 words
1.

The 1st petitioner, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the 2nd petitioner is the

Managing Committee of the 1st petitioner Society. They have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of

certiorari to set aside Exts.P9 to P12 orders issued by the Co-operative Arbitration Court in I.A.No.74/2016 in A.R.C.No.55/2016,

I.A.No.76/2016 in A.R.C.No.57/2016; I.A.No.77/2016 in A.R.C.No.58/2016; and I.A.No.75/2016 in A.R.C.No.56/2016 and modify the

same by permitting the petitioners to take decisions for the functioning of the 1st petitioner Society. The petitioners have also sought for other

consequential reliefs.

2.

On 9.8.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 18 to 20 and sought

time to get instructions. This Court has ordered urgent notice by speed post to other respondents, returnable within three weeks.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 17 and also the learned Government Pleader

appearing for respondents 18 to 20.

4.

During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, seeking modification of Exts.P9 to P12 orders, the

petitioners have already moved applications before the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The said applications now stand posted to 27.1.2018 for

orders.

5.

In such circumstances, recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and without prejudice to the right of

the petitioners to prosecute the aforesaid applications filed seeking modification of Exts.P9 to P12 orders, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving

open all the contentions raised by the petitioners.