Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

thottathil b. radhakrishnan, j.1. the fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'a', became a member of another credit society 'b', the third respondent. the petitioner, a member of 'b' society complained to the first respondent joint registrar. this court issued ext.p5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. ext.p6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'a' society when he became member of 'b' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'a' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'b' society. this is under challenge.2. that societies 'a' and 'b' are credit societies to which rule 17 of the kerala co-operative societies rules, 1969, hereinafter.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>No costs.<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>No costs.<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>No costs.<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>No costs.<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>No costs.<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>No costs.<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>No costs.<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>No costs.<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '849106',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Subash',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '849106',
		(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Subash Vs Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies - Citation 849106 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '849106',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Subash',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'casenote' => ' - What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.[para 9]
The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of Pinki. We must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9]
It is clear that Pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The finding of the Trial Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct. For this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
It is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC with the aid of Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act but also the offence under Section 201, IPC. [para 15]
HELD: We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' V.K. Sunil, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,; ',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-11-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.</p><p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.</p><p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.</p><p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.</p><p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.</p><p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.</p><p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.</p><p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.</p><p>No costs.<p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)KLT352',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '849106',
	(int) 1 => 'subash-vs-registrar-operative'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/849106/subash-vs-registrar-operative'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Natarajan v. Returning Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membership in that society was cancelled as per resolution dated 19.6.2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint. The fact remained that the fourth respondent's membership in 'B' society stood cancelled on 19.6.2007.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules provides that a person applying for admission as a member of any credit society shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Registrar, if on the date of such application, such person is a member of any other such credit society. Therefore, the bar is not on the application but on the admission which could be granted, if sanction is accorded by the Registrar. The consequences of the violation of that sub-rule could visit the person so admitted to membership with the penalty prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. It provides that when a person has become a member in contravention of Sub-rule (1), such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. Therefore, unless there is a written requisition from Registrar, the inhibition in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 will not make the admission to membership void. The penalty for violation of Rule 27(1) having been prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, no other penalty can be conceived and enforced. The violation of Rule 27(1) can only lead to the result provided by Rule 27(2). Therefore, until the Registrar issues a written requisition in terms of Rule 27(2), the member admitted in violation of Rule 27(1) will continue as a member.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the case in hand, the fact of the matter remains that the fourth respondent had become a member of 'A' society on 8.4.1960 and was removed from such membership on 19.6.2007. Though he became a member of 'B' society on 15.1.2002, the petitioner sought intervention of the Registrar only some time in 2007. With that, it cannot be said that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since there was no jurisdictional fact available for the first respondent to issue any order as sought for by the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The decision in Kunhiraman Nair v. Joint Registrar 2002 (2) KLT 113, relied on by the petitioner, is rendered with reference to Rule 16 of the Rules which deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership and rights and liabilities of members under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 are qualitatively distinct from the provision in Rule 27. This is all the more so because, depending on prior sanction of Registrar, an applicant for membership of a credit society can be admitted to such membership even if that person is the member of another credit society. The view taken here is also fortified by the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer 1997 (2) KLT 253.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to Ext.P6 fails.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>No costs.<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

No costs.

Subject	Constitution
Court	Kerala High Court
Decided On	Nov-23-2009
Case Number	W.P.(C) No. 31276 of 2008
Judge	Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
Reported in	2010(1)KLT352
Acts	Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rules 16, 16(3), 16(4), 17, 27, 27(1) and 27(2)
Appellant	Subash
Respondent	Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Appellant Advocate	V.K. Sunil, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader,; Shaji Thomas Porkkattil,;
Disposition	Petition dismissed
Cases Referred	Natarajan v. Returning Officer

Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies - Court Judgment