Kallappa Vs. the Chairman, Jamakhandi Co-operative Bank Limited, Jamakhandi and Another

Kallappa vs The Chairman, Jamakhandi Co-operative Bank Limited, Jamakhandi and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Apr 07, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/370634

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/370634
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
Decided On: Apr 07, 2000
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 1080 of 1999
Subject: Banking

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 468: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offence under Section 406 of I.P.C., - Bar to take cognizance, after lapse of more than 14 years On facts, held, The complainant is not claiming exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation under Section 470 C...

Key legal issue: Banking
Acts & sections: Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Sections 70; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 9; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 171

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kallappa

Advocate Sri M.B. Nargund, Adv.

Respondent

The Chairman, Jamakhandi Co-operative Bank Limited, Jamakhandi and Another

Advocate Sri Shivaraj Mudhol, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Sections 70; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 9; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 171
Reported In: 2001(1)KarLJ49

Excerpt

- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 468: [dr. k. bhakthavatsala, j] offence under section 406 of i.p.c., - bar to take cognizance, after lapse of more than 14 years on facts, held, the complainant is not claiming exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation under section 470 cr.p.c. further, the trial court has not passed any order under section 473 cr.p.c. regarding extension of period of limitation. hence, taking cognizance for the offence punishable under section 406 of ipc against the accused by the magistrate is bad in law. impugned order was quashed. .....the only remedy for the plaintiff to recover the amount if it is permissible in law and not by way of civil suit. being aggrieved by the finding, the revision is filed. 3. the perusal of the order of the trial court discloses that, all the relevant facts relating to the case have been copiously set out. the plaintiff, earlier to 1987 has deposited a sum of rs. 5,000/- in the bank as a customer and in the year 1987 he enrolled himself as a member and while doing so, he deposited the f.d. receipt of rs. 5,000/- for obtaining membership and later on borrowed a loan. the amount of loan borrowed is in controversy. according to the plaintiff, it is rs. 10,000/- and according to the defendant-bank it is rs. 4,200/-. however, that aspect of the matter is not in controversy in the suit. 4. the plaintiff made a claim for recovery of the f.d. amount from the defendant-bank in the above suit. the trial court, after going through the material, has given a finding that the civil court has no jurisdiction and that under section 70 of the co-operative societies act, the dispute is to be referred for arbitration. 5. the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the f.d. deposit of rs. 5,000/- is an independent transaction not in any way connected with his relationship of the society as a member. therefore section 70 of the co-operative society has no application to the facts of the case does not appear to be a tenable contention. 6. under section 171 of contract act, any amount held by the bank in whatever account of its customer bank has a general lien over all amounts in its custody. in the instant case the petitioner being member of the society whatever amount he had deposited in the bank in any capacity also becomes the subject-matter of a general lien and as such, any disputes between the member of the society and the bank will be covered by section 70 of co-operative societies act. in view of the matter that the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit as not.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The revision is directed against the order of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamakhandi passed in S.C. No. 74 of 1994.

2. The plaintiff is the revision-petitioner, who had filed the above suit for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant, which is a co-operative bank. The Trial Court, after hearing the plaintiff and the defendants on a preliminary point, dismissed the suit as not maintainable, as the dispute is covered under the Co-operative Societies Act and as per Section 70, arbitration is the only remedy for the plaintiff to recover the amount if it is permissible in law and not by way of civil suit. Being aggrieved by the finding, the revision is filed.

3. The perusal of the order of the Trial Court discloses that, all the relevant facts relating to the case have been copiously set out. The plaintiff, earlier to 1987 has deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the bank as a customer and in the year 1987 he enrolled himself as a member and while doing so, he deposited the F.D. receipt of Rs. 5,000/- for obtaining membership and later on borrowed a loan. The amount of loan borrowed is in controversy. According to the plaintiff, it is Rs. 10,000/- and according to the defendant-bank it is Rs. 4,200/-. However, that aspect of the matter is not in controversy in the suit.

4. The plaintiff made a claim for recovery of the F.D. amount from the defendant-bank in the above suit. The Trial Court, after going through the material, has given a finding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and that under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the dispute is to be referred for arbitration.

5. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the F.D. Deposit of Rs. 5,000/- is an independent transaction not in any way connected with his relationship of the society as a member. Therefore Section 70 of the Co-operative Society has no application to the facts of the case does not appear to be a tenable contention.

6. Under Section 171 of Contract Act, any amount held by the bank in whatever account of its customer bank has a general lien over all amounts in its custody. In the instant case the petitioner being member of the Society whatever amount he had deposited in the bank in any capacity also becomes the subject-matter of a general lien and as such, any disputes between the member of the society and the bank will be covered by Section 70 of Co-operative Societies Act. In view of the matter that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit as not maintainable in the Civil Court. Hence, the revision is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2000 Same Parties Kallappa vs The Chairman, Jamakhandi Co-operative Bank Limite... Same Subject Banking Same Judge K. Sreedhar Rao, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Sections 70; Cod...

Banking