9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EE OF THE MEENACHIL RUBBER MARKETING PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KOTTAYAM, THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) , KOTTAYAM [ 2017 (7) TMI 1403 - KERALA HIGH COURT] , and held as per the judgment dated 5.7.2017 that, the nature of the provisions and the regulatory powers conferred on the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act and Rules, 1969, makes it clear that, there is no inhibition created in directing to release the matured fixed deposit, and further held that, the writ petition is maintainable against the 1st respondent society. If the 1st respondent is carrying on with the banking business based on the permission granted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty, enter into contract, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose, for which 1st respondent society was constituted. It is also stated that, section 27 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 states that, final authority of a society vests in the general body of its members and every society is managed by the Managing Committee constituted in terms of the bye-laws as provided under section 28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The final authority of the respondent society is the general body of the members of the society and not the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or State Government. 3. According to the 1st respondent, the issue as to whether the Co-operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Judge of this court in W.P.(C) No.18243/2015 filed against the 1st respondent society, in W.P(C) No.29294/2017, and held as per the judgment dated 5.7.2017 that, the nature of the provisions and the regulatory powers conferred on the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act and Rules, 1969, makes it clear that, there is no inhibition created in directing to release the matured fixed deposit, and further held that, the writ petition is maintainable against the 1st respondent society. 6. First respondent has raised contentions relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court and this court quoted above. However, I am of the considered opinion that, they are rendered under different factual circumstances, which may not have much bearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly received by the 1st respondent as a loan. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, I do not find any such contentions raised. Moreover, from the fixed deposit receipts, it is evident that, same are amounts deposited in fixed deposits by the petitioner bank and the 1st respondent bank has undertaken to repay the same on its maturity. The findings rendered above is applicable in the other captioned writ petition also, operating under similar circumstances. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the respective counsel, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petitions. Consequentially there will be a direction to the respective respondents to pay th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
