Kerala High Court
The Mutholy Service Co-Operative Bank ... vs The Secretary To Government on 6 February, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 20TH MAGHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 6520 of 2017
----------------------
PETITIONER :
----------
THE MUTHOLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1631
THEKKEMURI, PULIYANNOOR POST,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENTS :
----------
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
TRIVANDRUM.
3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
POST BOX NO.15, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-20.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RON BASTIAN
R3 BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SENIOR ADVOCATE
BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 6520 of 2017 (L)
-------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
-----------------------
P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE
VARIOUS DEPOSITS THUS FAR MADE BY THE
PETITIONER.
P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6-2-2009.
P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26-2-2009.
P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4-11-2008.
P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
3-4-2009.
P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.NO.17793 OF
2009 DATED 1-10-2009.
P7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-6-2016 BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P8 : A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 21-7-2016.
P9 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 12-8-2015.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
---------------------
EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 15/1/2013.
EXT.R3(b): COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED
BY R3.
EXT.R3(c): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 15/1/2013.
EXT.R3(d): COPY OF GOVT. ORDER DT 11/2/2015 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF
KERALA.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C) No.6520 of 2017
==========================
Dated this the 09th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner is a Co-operative Society, incorporated under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). They say that they have been compelled to approach this Court because the various fixed deposits made by them with the 3 rd respondent, the Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation, which is an Apex Society as defined under the provisions of the Act, have not been returned to them, even though such deposits have attained maturity.
2. The writ petitioner details the deposits they have made with the 3rd respondent in Ext.P1 and asserts that even though all the said deposits have now matured for over two years, the 3rd respondent has chosen to refuse to repay the same with interest. The writ petitioner, therefore, prays in this 2 W.P.(C) No.6520 of 2017 writ petition for a direction to the 3 rd respondent to immediately disburse the entire amounts covered by various deposits.
3. I have heard Sri.Mathew John, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. S.M. Prasanth, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
4. Sri. Mathew John, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent cannot have any defence in this case, because they have confirmed the amounts due to them through Ext.P8 letter of confirmation. He says that the issue as to whether an Apex Society can refuse to make payments of the deposits made with them, inspite of the fact that such deposits have attained maturity , as has been answered by this Court in the judgment reported as Muthalapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd. and Others [2017 (4) KHC 805]. The learned Standing Counsel asserts that the ratio of the said judgment covers this case 3 W.P.(C) No.6520 of 2017 also.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent does not deny the liability due to the 1 st respondent. He only says that his client is presently without resources to make payment of such large amounts and he points out that as per Annexure-R3(c), produced along with the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, the Government was to help them out by converting debts, to the extent of Rs.39.87 crores, as shares. He says that the Government is yet to take a decision on the same, which has incapacitated its clients from honouring the commitments to the petitioner and various others.
6. Even though I hear these submissions made on behalf of the 3rd respondent, I am afraid that I cannot accede to them at all in law because, as long as the 3rd respondent does not deny liability it would be impermissible for them to refuse to repay the same, whatever be the reasons. If they choose to do so, then they will certainly have to face the consequences, as is prescribed under the Act and the Rules 4 W.P.(C) No.6520 of 2017 there under.
7. In such circumstances, and following the ratio in Muthalapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), I order this writ petition and direct the 3rd respondent to pay the amounts mentioned in Ext.P8 confirmation, along with the applicable interest, to the writ petitioner within a period of 8 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If the 3rd respondent fails in doing so, the petitioner would be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent Authority under the Act, for taking action against the 3 rd respondent in terms of the provisions relating to liquidation and appropriation of assets of the society, for the purpose of paying off the debts in terms of law.
The writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/12/02/2018 // true copy // P.A to Judge