either
by the surcharge officer or by the Tribunal. Neither the report
under section 52 of the Act nor the surcharge order under
Section ... Cooperative Societies
conducted surcharge proceedings without giving him any opportunity and
without any notice to the appellant and passed the surcharge order. The
petitioner herein
surcharge and directed the petitioner to remit the said amount within 30 days. According to the petitioner, only from the surcharge order dated 29.6.2009 petitioner ... dated 3.10.2012. The said order is challenged in this writ petition contending that the order of surcharge was issued on presumption and assumptions; that
committed a serious mistake in not properly considering that the surcharge order passed under Section 87(1) on the basis of the enquiry report cannot ... item nos.1 to 12 and 14 and 15 of the surcharge order issued to him. The said order cannot stand to legal scrutiny, since
Tribunal to pass order on merits. The Tribunal has passed fresh orders on 17.11.2012 once again upholding the surcharge orders of the first respondent ... Court set aside the order on the ground of non-speaking order, as it is found that the order is devoid of any discussion
Subsidy Surcharge
and (2) Regulatory Assets Surcharge.
3. The short facts are as under:
(a) The Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Order dated ... same was permitted by the Order
dated 28.6.2013. In pursuance of this order, the State
Commission issued the Impugned Order in case
surcharge proceedings. But the third respondent, without appreciating the facts of the case that the first respondent had wrongly passed the surcharge order, has dismissed ... impugned order, is not correct. In an effort to justify the impugned order, he submitted that after issuance of the surcharge notice under Section
second respondent herein, without considering the same, wrongly passed the surcharge order, whereby the petitioners were directed to repay the entire loan amount ... Rules, the second respondent passed the surcharge order on 21.7.2008. When the second respondent had acted in accordance with law and passed the surcharge order
petitioner, assailing the impugned order, firstly submitted that the first respondent-Tribunal failed to consider that the impugned order of surcharge under Section ... persons, he was issued with the surcharge notice on 15.2.2008 to explain as to why a surcharge order should not be passed against
done against the employees of the Central Cooperative Bank, the impugned surcharge order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the first respondent, as confirmed by the third ... Thereafter, the first respondent proceeded with the surcharge proceedings and passed a surcharge order on 21.7.2008. Before passing the surcharge order dated 21.7.2008, the record
loss mentioned in the respective item numbers of the surcharge order. When the contesting respondents were responsible for the grant of loans to fictitious persons ... Section 87 only, should have been dismissed. Again interfering with the surcharge order passed by the second respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tindivanam
