Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT806
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The Electoral Officer of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission issued notification dated 19.8.2002 (Ext. Pi in O.P. 27295/02) for holding election to the Managing Committee to the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. (MATSYAFED). As per the notification, 15 members were to be elected, viz., 13 members from the general seat, one member from SC/ST, and one lady member. Election was scheduled to be held on 18.9.2002. Nominations had to be filed on 5.9.2002 and its scrutiny was scheduled on 6.9.2002. The Returning Officer, MATSYAFED, accepted the nomination papers and rejected some of the nomination papers on the ground that the societies represented by those persons who filed the nominations were defaulters or in default to the apex society - the MATSYAFED. The President of the Pulluvila Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd., No. F(T) 28, Sri Lordan filed nomination as the nominee of the above society and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(1)KLT46
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is a candidate who aspires to contest the election to the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent Co-operative Bank. His nomination has already been accepted. Now he raises a grievance regarding the manner of printing of ballot papers for the election. According to the petitioner hitherto, the practice followed for election in this particular Co-operative Society and other Co-operative societies in the area was to print the names of the candidates, in the ballot paper in different colours. But contrary to the practise followed, now, on the basis of Ext.P4 circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the returning officer intends to print the names of the candidates in the ballot paper in single color, which is inconsistent with the practice followed in the elections of this Co-operative Society and other Co-operative Societies in that area. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same.2. The petitioner challenges C1. No. 1 of Ext.P4, which p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(1)KLT55
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The common issue raised in these two Writ Petitions is as to whether Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Societies Act') as amended by Amendment Act 1 of 2000, ousts the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of service matters of workmen of co-operative societies answering the definition of 'dispute' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act). In W.P.(C) No. 27909/2009, a co-operative society challenges the order by which the Government of Kerala has referred a dispute raised by a workman of the society to the Labour Court, Kozhikode for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the proceedings before the Labour Court, pursuant to the reference. In the other Writ Petition, the workman who raised the said dispute seeks to sustain the order of reference and the proceedings befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT655
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners challenge Ext.P2 by which the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal decided that a revision filed fey the writ petitioners and three others invoking Section 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was highly belated. The revision was accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal, as not maintainable, in view of the inordinate delay.2. Ext.P1 award for realisation of amounts awarded thereby was passed on 28-10-1997, by the Arbitrator under Section 70 of the Act. The revision under Section 84 of the Act was filed on 23-8-1999, more than one year and nine months after the award was passed.3. The Tribunal held that though Section 84 of the Act does not prescribe any time limit for filing a revision, there cannot be any unreasonable delay in doing so. In arriving at its conclusion as stated above, the Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court in Narayanan v. Rent Controller (1988 (2) KLT 74) and the decision of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR847]; (2002)IIILLJ678Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The point raised in both these cases are the same. Hence we are disposing of these by a common judgment. Question raised in this case is whether Government or Joint Registrar has got power to direct the Co-operative Bank to suspend its employee. Learned single Judge felt that when gross irregularities or misappropriation are found against employees it is always open to the Government or Joint Registrar to direct the society to suspend their employees. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that learned single Judge was not justified in holding that Joint Registrar and Government have got power to issue such a direction. Learned Government Pleader could not point out any provision either in the Co-operative Societies Act or in the Rules empowering the Joint Registrar or State Government to direct a society to suspend its employees. Rule 198(6) of the Co- operative Rules authorises only the competent authority to suspend an employee pending enquiry. We may...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2008Ker91; III(2008)BC626
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Are the Kerala State Co-operative Bank, the District Co-operative Banks and the Urban Co-operative Banks entitled to invoke the provisions of the Central Act 54/2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'? This is the issue involved in these writ petitions.2. Section 13(1) of the SARFAESI Act authorizes a secured creditor to enforce a security interest, without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of that Act. The different Clauses of Section 2(1), forming the interpretation Clause of that Act are relevant in this context. Clause (zf) defines 'security interest'. Clause (zd) defines a 'security creditor' to mean any bank or financial institution or any consortium or group of banks or financial Institutions in whose favour security interest is created for due repayment, by any borrower, of any financial assistance and includes the different entities enumerated in Sub-clauses (i) to (iii) thereof. Clause (c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(1)KLT147
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The Elamgulam Service Co-operative Bank, the 3rd respondent in O.P.No. 623 of 2000 is the appellant herein. The Original Petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2, two employees of the Bank, challenging disciplinary proceedings against them whereby by Ext. P3 notice, the administrator, who is in management of the Bank, called upon those employees to offer their comments on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry into the charges of misconduct levelled against the employees as a prelude to imposition of penalty on the respondents 1 and 2.2. Relying on certain decisions of this Court, namely, President,Pudupariyaram Service Co-op. Society v. Rugmini Amma and Ors. 1996 (1) KLT 100, Achamma Cyriac v. K.F.C. and Ors. 1996 (1) KLJ 756 and Kunhammed v. Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies 1998 (1) KLT 60 and Rugmini Amma's case (supra) in particular, the learned Single Judge accepted the contention of respondents 1 and 2 that if the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2006]132CompCas347(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. By an order dated December 28, 1998 (exhibit 1 P8), the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kottayam (third respondent herein) had overruled the objections of the petitioner in the matter of confirmation of sale of a landed property, admeasuring two acres and 98 cents of land with a building in Survey No. 341/4 of Thalapalam village. This was purported to be in exercise of powers under Section 21(3) of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Act, 1984 (Act 20 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 20 of 1984'). The application was at the instance of the first respondent-the Meenachil Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. The objector was the petitioner- Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., represented by its branch manager, who had a claim that the property had been already mortgaged to them prior to the encumbrance created in favour of the first respondent-bank. The fourth respondent was the owner of the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker154; III(2007)BC7; [2006]131CompCas232(Ker); 2006(1)KLT479
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Whether a suit or other proceeding filed by a bank or financial institution as defined in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the Act) and pending adjudication before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Societies Act) would stand automatically transferred to the Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Act? If not, dismissal of the suit by the Registrar, instead of returning the same for presentation before the Tribunal, is not improper resulting in miscarriage of justice? These are the questions for consideration in this Original Petition filed in the backdrop of the following facts.2. Petitioner is a nationalised bank and respondent No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the Societies Act. According to the petitioner, respondent No. l borrowed a certain sum of money from the petitioner-bank, respondent No. 2 executed agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2005]142STC266(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. In all these writ petitions the sole question that arises for consideration is as to whether the State of Kerala has got any priority in the matter of recovery of the sales tax dues from the defaulters over the equitable mortgages created by such defaulters earlier in favour of the petitioner-banks.2. Writ Petition Nos. 24528 of 2000, 2082 of 2002, 23634 of 2003 and 36608 of 2003 are filed by the State Bank of Travancore, Writ Petition No. 36313 of 2000 is filed by the Vijaya Bank, Writ Petition No. 8855 of 2003 is filed by the Alleppey District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Writ Petition No. 33352 of 2003 is filed by the Allahabad Bank.3. Though facts of individual cases have not much relevance so far as the question mentioned above, the facts may be briefly stated: In O.P. No. 24528 of 2000 filed by the State Bank of Travancore, the third respondent, a public limited company, availed loan to the tune of Rs. 60 lakhs during 1985 and 1986, inter alia, pledging the machi...
Tag this Judgment!