Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT250
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Retrospective levy of penal interest and rate of interest are the two issues to be tackled in these cases, in the background of an amendment to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). The impugned amendment is to Rule 39 (paragraph?) of the Scheme. Rule 39(1A) was introduced as per notification dated 4-2-1999. The provision reads as follows:'39(1A). If any society fails to transfer the employees contribution with interest accrued thereon after the commencement of Section 80A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994, within a period of one year from 14.3.1995, that is the date of implementation of the pension scheme or has transferred only a part thereof, shall be liable to transfer such amount or part thereof as the case may be with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.'2. The Scheme is framed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has ventilated her grievance that the first respondent Bank has sought to recover with retrospective effect after more than six years the amounts paid to her initially on her attaining the grade promotion in the rank of Steno-Typist. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner joined the first respondent Bank on 29.04.1989 as a Steno-cum-Typist, and later, on 20.01.1991, had her services regularized with effect from 13.05.1990. Soon thereafter, on 20.11.1991, the petitioner was transferred and posted in the main branch of the first respondent Bank as a Clerk-Cashier. 3. When two of her juniors, namely Mr.C.Thamban and Mr.K.V.Venu, were given grade promotion in 1991, the petitioner complained to the first respondent Bank about the disparity. When nothing had been heard, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government staking her claim on the strength of Exhibits P1 and P2 Government Orders. 4. In the wake of the directions said to have been given by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioners, eleven in number, have filed the writ petition assailing Exhibit P1 order of the Registrar, the second respondent, who has appointed an Administrator by exercising his powers under Section 33(1) of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act ('the Act' for brevity). 2. Very briefly stated, the respondent Federation got a duly elected Managing Committee comprising 23 members: 14 elected, 7 ex officio and 2 nominees of the Government. In the course of time, the Managing Director, who is also an ex-officio member of the Managing Committee, addressed a communication to the Registrar to the effect that the Managing Committee of the respondent Federation did not have sufficient quorum to transact its business in its meetings held on 16.01.2015 and 26.02.2015. Taking the Managing Director's communication as an expression of opinion on his part that there is an administrative stalemate, the Registrar through Exhibit P1 appointed an Administrator. Thus, the Managing Committee stoo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. In this writ petition, yet again, the issue of a turf war between the co-operative societies operating in the adjacent areas has fallen for consideration. In fact, the core issue to be determined is about the resultant alleged prejudice on account of encroachment by one society into the area of another society. 2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank established in 1943, whereas the first respondent was established in 2002. The petitioner Bank has Elathur as one of its areas of operation; the first respondent Bank has as its area of operation the entire territory of Kozhikode Corporation. 3. In the course of time, to be more specific, in 2009, the Government expanded the territorial limits of the Kozhikode Corporation by including four more Grama Panchayats. Incidentally, Elathur is one of the Grama Panchayats that has been annexed to the Kozhikode Corporation. Taking advantage of the expanded area, the first respondent Bank has amended its bye-laws, including newly-annexed areas a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. The petitioner is a former employee of the third respondent co- operative society. He entered service as a Lower Division Clerk on 15.4.1960 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.8.1998. He was a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 with effect from 1.2.1966. 2. While the petitioner was working as Branch Manager, a theft occurred in the Othara branch where the petitioner was working, on 10.6.1994. By order passed on 25.6.1994 the petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary action was initiated against him. Later, by order passed on 28.8.1996, he was dismissed from service. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of dismissal from service in appeal before the Managing Committee of the third respondent society. He thereafter unsuccessfully moved the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under rule 176 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969. His appeal to the Government was also dismissed. He, thereupon, filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Introduction: 1. The petitioners, thirteen in number, were the members of the erstwhile managing committee, which assumed charge on 24.06.2013. It seems some of them were also the members of the previous managing committee. Because the managing committee was guilty of the negligence in supervising the administration of the Bank, the respondent authorities initiated an enquiry and eventually passed Exhibit P4 order of supersession under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act' for brevity). Assailing the said order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Facts: 2. The two employees of the respondent Bank Accountant and Secretary misappropriated funds to a tune of Rs.74 lakhs. As soon as the managing committee came to know of the misappropriation, it ensured recovery of Rs.64 lakhs from those persons. At any rate, given the magnitude of misappropriation, the Joint Registrar appointed an Inspector of the Department to enquire into the affairs of the Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Promotion given to the petitioners in O.P. No. 12170 of 1998 to the post of Sr. Supervisors is under challenge in O.P. No. 18048 of 1997, stating that they are not qualified in terms of Rule 186(i)(ii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and that the same is contrary to Ext.P4 (Special Rules) framed by the Bank. Ext.P4 (Special Rules) in O.P. No. 18048 of 1997 is sought to be set aside by the petitioners in O.P. No. 12170 of 1998, stating that the same is contrary to the mandate of Rule 186 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and hence not enforceable. 2. The petitioner in O.P. 18048 of 1997, pursuant to Ext. P2 notification, was selected and appointed as Junior Clerk in the service of the respondent Bank, as per Ext. P1 appointment order dated 09.01.1986. The petitioner is a Graduate with HDC and hence qualified for the post. The probation was declared on 20.04.1987 and he was later promoted as Jr. Supervisor w.e.f. 01.03.1990 as per Ext.P3. The case of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. About this case, the less said the better. It singularly illustrates to what extent a suitor can go to wrench an order from one forum or another, at any cost whatever be the consequences. As I propose to dispose of the writ petition, or rather dismiss it, on the principal ground of the petitioner s deplorable conduct, especially as regards the manner in which he abused the process of court, I need not advert to the merits of the matter. 2. The petitioner pledged his gold ornaments and borrowed (in fact, through different loans) Rs.30,00,000/- from the first respondent Bank. After initial payments, when the petitioner had committed default, the first respondent initiated recovery proceedings, as part of which it issued Ext.P11 series of notices proposing to auction the gold ornaments on 27.06.2015. Under those circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a sale deed executed by a member of a co-operative society in favour of the co-operative society of which he is a member, is eligible for remission of the whole of the stamp duty payable on it under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. The petitioner is a co-operative society. It was registered in the year 1937 under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. With the enactment and coming into force of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) with effect from 15.5.1969, the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 and the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 stood repealed. However in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 110 of the Act it was stipulated that notwithstanding such repeal, any society existing in the State on the date of commencement of the Act which has been registered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
B. Radhakrishnan, J . 1. These appeals by primary agricultural credit societies registered and classified as such under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for short, 'KCS Act', relate to exemptions claimed by them with reference to section 80P(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter, 'IT Act'. Issues are also raised relating to the validity or otherwise of the returns filed by the assessees beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1)/(4) or section 142(1)/148 for the purpose of deciding exemption under section 80P of the IT Act. Inci dental issues relating to doubtful debts proportionate to the gross total income and the status of rural branch to claim deduction referable to section 36 (1)(viia) of the IT Act are also raised. 2.Heard Snr.Adv.Firoze B.Andhyarujina and Snr.Adv.T.M.Sreedharan and other learned advocates for the appellants and Snr.Adv.P.K.R.Menon, learned senior standing counsel for the Government of India (Taxes) assisted by Adv.Jose Jose...
Tag this Judgment!