Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1978Ker30
ORDERGeorge Vadakkel, J.1. The petitioners are the Secretary, Accountant, Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk of the 4th respondent Society and they impugn here the classification of Banking Co-operative Societies with working capital between Rs. 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs into Urban Banks coming under the Banking Regulation Act and Credit Societies for the purpose of regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service of officers and servants as contained in Appendix III to the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969,2. Section 80 (1) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 enables the Government to classify the societies governed by the Act according to their type and financial position. Sub-section (3) therein enables the Government to make rules regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service of the Officers and servants of different classes of Societies specified in Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) of the section enabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY,THE3D DAYOF JULY201512TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 18752 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER : - ---------------------- TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, WATER WORKS COMPOUND, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORYAND CHAIRMAN, M.MAHEEN ABUBAKER. BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA SRI.S.KANNAN SMT.UMMUL FIDA RESPONDENTS : - --------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, WATER WORKS COMPOUND, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.2. THE MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, WATER WORKS COMPOUND, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.3. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRU...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1988Ker75; [1989(58)FLR78]; (1988)IILLJ307Ker
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. Inter pretation of Rule 200 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules arises for consideration in all these matters, referred to a Full Bench, by different Benches which noticed an 'apparent conflict' between twq Division Bench rulings of this Court in Narayanan Nair v. Kottayam Dist. Co-op. Bank, 1984 Ker LT 248 and Krishnankutty Nair v. Joint Registrar, 1984 Ker LT 788. A proper understanding of the content of Rule 200 disposes of all these matters and we shall, therefore, first confine our attention to this question of law and then dispose of the matter on the facts in each case.2. The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('The Act') meant to 'consolidate, amend and unify the laws relating to Co-operative Societies in the State of Kerala' came into force on 12th May, 1969. Section 80 of the Act provided for classification of the Societies and for making rules 'regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service of the officers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Appeal has been filed by a Co-operative Bank and its President who were respondent Nos.5 and 4 to the Writ Petition filed by three petitioners, members of the Managing Committee of the Bank, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Bank for their expulsion from primary membership of the Bank. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition directing that the petitioners shall continue to be the members of the Bank. 2. The parties shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petition. 3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this Writ Appeal are: Writ Petitioners were elected as members of the Managing Committee of the Bank (Directors of Board of Management of the Bank) on 05.09.2012. Petitioners 1 to 3 and other members of the Managing Committee sent a complaint dated 15.07.2013 to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thrissur making allegations against the Secretary of the Bank. Again a complaint dated 07.09.2013 was submitted by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT887
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Ext.P5 proceedings drawn up by the third respondent-Returning Officer, who had been authorised to conduct an election to the Perumbalam Milk Producers Cooperative Society, Alappuzha, (4th respondent) (herein after referred to as the Society) is under challenge by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee, who is presently in office. The Society came into existence in 1995, but the Committee constituted could not carry out any functioning and the Department was constrained to appoint aft Administrator in the same year, under Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The term of the Administrator was not extended thereafter and practically the activities of the Society became defunct. After about eight years, there were proposals for resurrecting the Society. By Ext.P1 proceedings, the Department had appointed an Administrative Committee for reviving the institution. The order required them to re-Start the functioning of the institution and also for ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2004Ker117; 2004(1)KLT281
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Can the Administrator appointed under Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 3969 enrol new members? This question was answered in the negative by a Full Bench of this Court in Hassan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1998 (2) KLT 746 FB), ft was held that the Administrator appointed under Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 has no power to enrol new members. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. T.A. Kuttappan and Ors. (2000 (6) SCC 1271). In the meantime, another Full Bench of this Court considered the matter in Cherthala Agricultural Rural Development Bank v. Joint Registrar (2000 (1) KLT 730 FB) and took the view that the decision in Hassan's case will operate prospectively from the date of the decision and not retrospectively. Does the later decision lay down a rule of universal application or was it confined to the facts of that case? This is the issue that a...
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
Reported in : 2009(2)KLJ129
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In spite of three postings, after service of notice on them, respondents 3 to 5 have not appeared.2. The petitioner, while the Secretary of the 5th respondent, was suspended and was later dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings. X, an advocate, was the Enquiry officer. The petitioner sought that three resolutions in relation to disciplinary proceedings be rescinded. Whatever be the effect of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the 'Act', for short, one glaring illegality that appears on the face of the record is that X, the Enquiry officer, appeared on behalf of the employer to support the findings and the decisions which were impugned by the petitioner before the Deputy Director. Loosing his case before the Deputy Director, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government. X appeared for the employer even before the Government.3. The Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry as part of disciplinary proceedings,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT62
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. These two Writ Petitions could be disposed of by a common judgment, since the facts are almost identical. In W.P.(C) No. 20001 of 2004, the petitioner is the President of an Industrial Co-operative Society. For election to the Circle Co-operative Union, as envisaged under Sections 88 and 90 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, steps were being taken and a preliminary voters list had been published. But, it was found that the name of the petitioner's Society had not been included and therefore the Committee members as well as the employees of the Society, who are two distinct categories to be included in the electoral college, are disabled from exercising their franchise, or for filing nomination as candidates. The Writ Petition had been filed in the above said circumstance, seeking for such relief.2. In addition, there was yet another submission made. It is that a separate electoral roll in respect of elections to the posts had been envisaged. In other words...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1992)ILLJ560Ker
Malimath, C.J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is Shertallai Taluk Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd., a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The third respondent Smt. C.A. Vijayam was its paid Secretary. On the ground that she has committed certain misconduct pending disciplinary proceedings, she was kept under suspension on January 17, 1979. The said decision did not make any provision for grant of any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The third respondent made an application under Section 4 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Subsistence Allowance Act') for grant of subsistence allowance to her in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. That application was opposed by the petitioner on various grounds, inter alia, contending that the third respondent is not an employee as defined in Section 2(a) of the Subsistence Allowance Act, she having been emp...
Tag this Judgment!