Sri Bhogeswara Consumer vs The Joint Registrar Of Coperative ... on 10 February, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Bhogeswara Consumer vs The Joint Registrar Of Coperative ... on 10 February, 2012

Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale

EA

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 10*" DAY OF FEBRUARY u2"Q_i2_

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIRIS-..13HOjsALE'   

W.P.NO. 141O/2O;i2"{C'S--IRES) -: 

BETWEEN

SR1 BHOGESWARA CONSUMER  ' I
CO--OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD_,..--.. _ "
BHOGADI ,KASABA HO__BL~I 5  --
MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT  1 .
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT '- _  '

 I       'T  PETITIONER
(BY SR1. N4R'.,.KRI;_SHv_NAPPA,:.AD\(.I, jg V

'THE JOINT R-ESGIASTRAR OF
CO-OPERA.TI\,'..E vSOC_1ET1"ES
MY'SOREREG1O.N= _ 

_ _ NEw"FU_BL1.C.=OFF1CES BUILDING
_; MYSORE~, V

1....

"T  'TOHE.iDE._PUTY REGISTRAR OF

 _ "CO~QREFgAT1vE SOCIETIES
-MY~S'OR.'Ev.D"1STR1CT
NEwj'j_F>U'EsL1C OFFICES BUILDING
VMYSQIRE

 AA 3. '7T,_.1-TE LIQUIDATOR

SR1 BHOGESWARA CONSUMER
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,
BHOGADI,MYSORE CUM INSPECTOR
OF CS, MYSORE (NORTH) O/O

THE ARCS MYSORE



4. SMT VARALAKSHMI   ._
W/O KRISHNE GOWDA ~ H
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS   ..--   
#22S,CH/-\MUNDESHWARI TEMPLEROAD  " - =
BOGADHI *- w *"

MYSORE TALUK & DISTRIC.T.."«
5. B C LINGE GOWDA  '

S/O LATE CHIKKALINGE G.OW:D--A"'--~.,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS  _ I .. 
#412,BANK COLO'NY RO/\D§, ;
BOGADHI i' f": ,,
MYSORE TALUK &,D'ISTR'ICT_ 

6. PUTFE GOWD-A 1' _,     
S/O SID._DE§3'OVv'DA  _  " 
AGED'ABQUTv-SQ Y'EA..RS~._ ' ' I
R/AT AIO~:j237,III CRO~S_S,_ 
+_<.uvE__MRI_J N';é\;;g3AR~»._  
YBOGADHL 4 .ja_ !

MYSORE T'zx'LIuL SL 'D.IS'T.R'IcT

7. JAYAI<uMAR'«    
S/O..cHTAMDND'Ex3O'wDA
AGED~AB'OUT._60=YEARS

;'R1AT BUGADHI '

  MYSORE TA'LU.K.&DIST
  as SWAMY
 _ S/O LATESANNE GOWDA
V AGED AB_Q.UT 45 YEARS
« R/A'_T.BO,GADHI
MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT

  .  RESPONDENTS
.. (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 & R2,

'SR1. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADV., FOR R4-8)

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

 ..._.;IcONSTITu?TION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF

R1 DTD.6.1.12, PASSED IN APPEAL NO.JRM/DAP/1/2011-12
PASSED VACATING THE STAY ORDER GRANTED IN THE SAME



APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER. THE COPY (JETTHE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN THE APPEAL IS PRODU_CED~w_AT
ANNEX-H. T'  A'

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMIl\lA._F::{Y'::_r'l.EAliI'llG '

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FO?|_M|:Cb)WING':'""*--
PC:
Heard the learned couns4el.'¥f'or_wVthe"parties. 

2. This writ the order dated
6.1.12 passed_p'y<..the;:'iét:'responde,_ntT¥JoTntARegistrar of Co-
operative  stay granted vide
orderV,,.2.9..4iI1:i' ;jV'1,.s,::appealrNoTTRMYDAP/1/2011-12 filed by
the  'appeal was directed against
the ordergundelr'  of the Karnataka Co--operative

Socjieyties, ActtA..1T9:59,: (for short 'the Act'). Though the

 'orVder_:wasi'passed in 2005, admittedly, further order under

 the Act, appointing Liquidator was not

passec__i° bytthe Registrar, and as a result thereof, charge of

.. the Society continued with the Managing Committee. The
2_"p»et.i'tioner't--Society thereafter challenged the order passed

Sunder Section 72 of the Act in appeal along with an

application for condonation of delay. The delay was



 '  . At"r§.e{'eiJ''ds "of J'ustic'é":' ''

condoned and the appeal was admitted and"tVheﬂ'o.r'd..er

dated 31.3.2005 passed under Section 72 ,_
stayed. The order of stay has now been..v,afcated: by  

impugned order, at the instance of,,4,r€_:s'puon4de--nt's=4._:tog.S,

who claim that they aresthe forrner Dcirecgtoérs o;fu'the'<,

petitioner-Society. The first"res'poVnde'nt.  the stay
keeping the appeal pe"n.dingra,Arl':'fi.riwaVll'"disposal."wEven after
vacating the stay, tilllwthisg  t'inle'lA'lc'o»rf--7cerned authority
has not appoiéntedeLiduidator  for under Section
73 of the. and considering that
sinceil'M'a'r_c*ilf,';o_o:%,'  order U/$.72 of the Act,
the l\/lvlaneaging' .lC_'o.rnfnrii't"t.:e:e«l'continuous to hold charge of the

Society,  s.a'tisfi.ed""that the following order shall meet

ORDER

15' respondent--Joint Registrar of C'o.eop__era_ti:ye Societies to decide the petitioner's appeal on ., merits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible it preferably, within a period of eight weeks from today. ii. The petitioner--Society is directed to communicate this order to the 15' respondent...yv»i.t_hi_n a period of one week from today.

iii. It is needless to men't'io'n«,. the _;'S§':respon.dei'1t i shall grant an opportunity of ..conc:er.nVe'd_VV including the Detitioner--Socieg.tS7"'a»nd to 8:' Till the appeal is heard and fina'i'ly the 15' respondent, the maintain status- quo. By virtue3Lof- it is made clear, if the it may continue to appeal. However, it shall not takeVV:'a_ny' till the disposal of the ' .....

Tl;"««..

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court