Karnataka High Court
R Purushotham vs State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2020
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.44376/2017 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
R.PURUSHOTHAM
THE TRUSTEE OF
KURAKALU HANUMAKKA &
B.M.RAMAIAH TRUST
S/O.R.RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.14, INFANTRY ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
...PETITIONER
(By SMT:VIDYA SELVAMONY, ADV FOR M/S. NAG ASSOCIATES,
ADVS. )
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2.THE REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKER ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
2
3.THE BRANCH MANAGER
TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
JP NAGAR BRANCH
NO.726/A, 24TH MAIN, 6TH PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078.
4.V.ANAND-TRUSTEE
KURAKALU HANUMAKKA &
B.M.RAMAIAH TRUST
S/O.LATE R.VENKATARAMAN
NO.11, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 052.
5.V.K.GURUPRAKASH-TRUSTEE
KURAKALU HANUMAKKA &
B.M.RAMAIAH TRUST
S/O.LATE V.KANTHARAJU
NO.11, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 052.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SMT :JYOTHI BHAT,HCGP FOR R-1,
SRI.REVANASIDDAIAH, ADV. FOR R-3
SRI.B.V.SANJAY KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-4 AND R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R-2 DATED 28.03.2017 AT
ANNEXURE-C; DIRECT TO ACCEPT THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-D TO THIS W.P. ON FILE AND
DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITHIN THE
TIME STIPULATED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.UBC-5/174/DISP/2016-17 dated 28.03.2017 vide Annexure-C and for a writ of mandamus to entertain the dispute raised under Annexure-D under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act').
2. Heard Smt.Vidya Selvamony, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents No.1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the endorsement issued at Annexure-C dated 28.03.2017 by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies is wholly illegal and the second respondent failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 70 of the Act. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondents No.4 and 5 who are the trustees of Kurakalu Hanumakka and B.M.Ramaiah 4 Trust have no authority or competence to open an account in 3rd respondent-Tumakuru Grain Merchants Co-operative Bank Limited on behalf of the Trust. The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act before the second respondent seeking for a direction to 3rd respondent-Bank immediately to stop the operation of accounts maintained by respondents No.4 and 5 in the name of the Trust.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 justifies the endorsement issued by respondent No.2. Further, the learned HCGP would submit that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.4 and 5 arising out of the Will is to be sorted out before the Civil Court and it is not a dispute falling under Section 70 of the Act. Internal dispute among the petitioner and respondents No.4 and 5 trustees would not be maintainable before the second respondent.
5. The petitioner and respondents No.4 and 5 are the trustees of Kurakalu Hanumakka and B.M.Ramaiah Trust. 5 The petitioner is aggrieved by opening of the account in the 3rd respondent-Bank by respondents No.4 and 5 on behalf of the Trust. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent Nos.4 and 5 ceased to be Managing Trustees and they have no power to open bank account on behalf of the Trust. The dispute among the petitioner and respondents No.4 and 5 is internal dispute between the trustees of Kurakalu Hanumakka and B.M.Ramaiah Trust. The question whether the Trustees have power to open account on behalf of the Trust and operate the same would not fall within the jurisdiction of the second respondent under Section 70 of the Act.
6. Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act reads as follows:
70. Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society arises.--6
(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or
(b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or
(c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs, or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society, or
(d) between the society and any other co-operative society,[or a credit agency] such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and4[no civil or labour or revenue court or Industrial Tribunal] shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemedto be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely:--7
(a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;
(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;
(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-president, Chairman, Vice-
chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or Member of Committee of the society.
(d) any dispute between a co-operative society and its employees or past employees or heirs or legal representatives of a deceased employee, including a dispute regarding the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a co- operative society6[notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947);
(e) a claim by a co-operative society for any deficiency caused in the assets of the co-operative society by a member, past member, deceased 8 member or deceased officer, past agent or deceased agent or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant or by its committee, past or present whether such loss be admitted or not.
(3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co- operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.
(4) xxxxx (5) xxxxx
7. The dispute raised by the petitioner is not among the members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members or deceased member and the society, committee or any officer or employee of the Society or between the Society and other Co-operative Society or between the Society or its committee and any past committee, any officer or any past officer or employee or past employee or legal representative of any deceased officer or employee, touching 9 the constitution, management or the business of the Co- operative society. Only the disputes falling under sub- Section 1(a) to (d) of Section 70 of the Act would be maintainable before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The dispute raised by the petitioner under Annexure-D before the second respondent would not fall under Section 70 (1) (a) to (d) of the Act. The dispute appears to be among the trustees of the Kurakalu Hanumakka and B.M.Ramaiah Trust. Thus, I find no error or illegality in issuing endorsement dated 28.03.2017 at Annexure-C.
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE mpk/-*