9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocate for R-3; R-2- served. ORDER The 1st petitioner was the President of the 3rd respondent-society during the year 1989-90. The order petitioner are directors. As per the direction of the 3rd respondent-society the Government of Karnataka appointed a senior the Government of Karnataka appointed as senior auditor to audit the accounts of the society. The auditor audited the accounts for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.05.1991 also fixed the liability of each of the petitioners individually. This audit report is now challenged in this writ petition. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the First Audit Report which was approved by the general body and which is more less in the same of the Second Audit Report is binding on the respondent and there was no need to have a secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the first audit report which innovated the petitioners would be the correct basis for proceeding against the petitioners in accordance with law. 4. Apart from this, the Registrar has also initiated proceedings against the petitioners under Section 64 of the Act on the basis of an independent enquiry relying on both the audit reports. 5. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-society submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o submits that he is prepared to face the music on the basis of the first audit report and it is alo submitted y the learned counsel for the society that proceeding are also initiated under Section 64 and 68 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. In that view of the matter, the second audit report dated 16.05.19914 is liable to be quashed. 7. In this result , the first audit report dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
