Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE2D DAY OF DECEMBER201411TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 CRL.A.No. 214 of 2011 ( ) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.L.P. 44/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED1301-2011 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC5732009 of J.M.F.C. - I, CHALAKUDY DATED2611-2010 APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO.R.312 IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAJAN CHACKO. BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE: ------------------------------- 1. BABY SIDHARTHA, W/O.MALEDATH SIDHARTHAN, PAZHOOKKARA, ANNALLUR P.O.-680307, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 31. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.DHANIL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0212-2014, THE CO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE2D DAY OF DECEMBER201411TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 CRL.A.No. 214 of 2011 ( ) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.L.P. 44/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED1301-2011 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC5732009 of J.M.F.C. - I, CHALAKUDY DATED2611-2010 APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO.R.312 IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAJAN CHACKO. BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE: ------------------------------- 1. BABY SIDHARTHA, W/O.MALEDATH SIDHARTHAN, PAZHOOKKARA, ANNALLUR P.O.-680307, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 31. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.DHANIL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0212-2014, THE CO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE2D DAY OF DECEMBER201411TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 CRL.A.No. 214 of 2011 ( ) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.L.P. 44/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED1301-2011 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC5732009 of J.M.F.C. - I, CHALAKUDY DATED2611-2010 APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO.R.312 IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAJAN CHACKO. BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE: ------------------------------- 1. BABY SIDHARTHA, W/O.MALEDATH SIDHARTHAN, PAZHOOKKARA, ANNALLUR P.O.-680307, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 31. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.DHANIL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0212-2014, THE CO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This writ petition is at the instance of the petitioners who are mentally retarded children, represented by their guardians. The subject matter of dispute is the alleged denial of admission for them for the academic year 2011-2012 in the Shilpa Special School, Palluruthy, of which the seventh respondent is the Principal. 2. Elaborate arguments have been heard on both sides. The resolution of the dispute requires consideration of the facts in some detail and therefore initially I shall refer to the factual aspects. 3. According to the petitioners, the classes for the academic year 2011-2012 started on 15.6.2011. The school is managed by a Society called "Shilpa Society for the Mentally Handicapped" represented by the sixth respondent Secretary. They are getting grant from the Central Government. Even though it is alleged in the writ petition that they have been receiving grant from the State Government and the Cochin Corporation, the same was found not corr...
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 : 2009(3)KLJ9
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the present managing committee of the Vallappuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) represented by its President Sri. P.K. Koya. As originally constituted, the challenge in the writ petition was against Ext PI show cause notice issued under Section 32(1) of the Act, directing the committee to show cause why the committee should not be superseded under that Section for the 12 irregularities detailed therein. By interim order dated 8-5-2007, this Court directed mat the implementation of any order pursuant to Ext. P1 shall be kept in abeyance for three weeks. Subsequently, after several extensions of the said order, the same was extended until further orders on 13-1-2007. Thereafter, ExtP5 order dated 6-12-2007 was passed by the 1st respondent, superseding the Society and appointing an administrator ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(3)KLT38
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In these group of cases, the main question to be decided is whether Co-operative banks are liable to comply with the directions of the Reserve Bank of India issued from time to time. W.A.No. 707 of 2003 was filed by Wandoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P.No. 26589 of 2002. The above O.P. was filed for a declaration that the registration of Wandoor Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., fourth respondent in the O.P. in violation of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (in short B. R. Act) and not to permit the fourth respondent to function as a Rural Bank. The learned single Judge found that the fourth respondent was not a primary agricultural credit co-operative society as defined under Section 2(c) of the Co-operative Societies Act as the bye-laws would show that it was for providing credit facilities for industry, education, trade and employment and the above Rural Cooperative Bank is, in fact, an Urban ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(2)KLT191
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The issue for consideration in this case is whether notice under Section 115 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Multi Societies Act') is necessary for filing an eviction petition under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') against a Multi-State Cooperative Society. First petitioner, All India Handloom Fabrics Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. is having the showroom in a rented premises owned by the respondents. Respondents filed an application under Section 11(3) and 11(8) of the Rent Act before the Rent Control Court for evicting the first petitioner society. Petitioners raised a preliminary objection before the Rent Control Court that since they are a National Cooperative Society within the meaning of the 'Multi-State Co-operative Society' as defined under the Multi Societies Act, it is obligatory that notice under Section 115 of the Multi Societies Act should b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker72; 2005(1)KLT206; [2006]69SCL33(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The issue to be decided in this case is the power of State Government in nominating Directors in the Board of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Under Section 48 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (Act 39 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act'), vis-a-vis the power of nomination by the Central and State Governments as per the bye-laws. The Central Areacanut and Coco Marketing and Processing Cooperative Ltd., properly known as CAMP CO Ltd. is a Multi-State Co-operative Society. The bye-laws of the society were framed in conformity with the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (Act 51 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1984 Act'). The State Governments of Kerala and Karnataka have subscribed to the share capital of the second respondent society. Clause 16 of bye-laws of the society provides the constitution of the Board of Directors of the society. The total members of the Board is 19. As per Clause 16(1)(c) ...
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!