Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Pradeep U.R vs Kerala State Co-Operative Election ... on 27 February, 2015

The Karassery Service Co-Operative ... vs State Of Kerala on 29 July, 2020

In Pradeep v. Kerala State Co-operative Election W.P.(C)No.38305 of 2016 104 Commission [2016 (4) KHC 93], a decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for additional respondents 10 to 17, a Full Bench of this Court noticed that the 97 th amendment to the Constitution of India had been challenged before the Gujarat High Court in a public interest litigation as to its constitutional validity, mainly for want of satisfaction of the requirement under the proviso to Article 368(2) of the Constitution of India, which envisaged ratification of amendment by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States.
Kerala High Court Cites 142 - Cited by 8 - A Narendran - Full Document

The Managing Committee vs The Joint Registrar Of Co Operative ... on 31 May, 2021

Applying the dictum laid down in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. case (supra), the Full Bench decision in Pradeep's case (supra), to the judgment dated 22.4.2013 of the Gujarat High Court it can only be held that the decision of the Gujarat High Court in W.P.(PIL)No.166 of 2012 is having application throughout India, subject to the applicability of the Act and outcome of the verdict to be passed by the Apex Court in SLP Nos.25266-25267/2013 now pending before the Apex Court. In short, the first respondent viz., the appellant in W.A.No.1060/2020 cannot now raise contention founded on Article 243ZL to support the contention that the Registrar could supersede and suspend the Managing Committee of the Bank in question.
Kerala High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Managing Committee vs The State Co-Operative Election ... on 27 July, 2016

19. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has advanced arguments fully in support of the arguments put forth by the learned Special Government Pleader and in support of Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent. Learned counsel has contended that as per the provisions of Part IX B of the Constitution of India, the issue with respect to the administration of the Co-operative Societies are dealt with, and accordingly as per the mandate of the Constitutional provisions, the Administrative Committee is to function in terms of the stipulations contained thereunder. However, I am reminded of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in 'Pradeep U.R. and another v. Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and others' [2016 (4) KHC 93], following the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, held, the provisions of Part IX B of the Constitution are W.P.(C) No.26608 of 2016 18 unconstitutional. Therefore, the said provisions may not have any bearing at all. Yet another circumstance pointed out by learned counsel is that the general body meeting of the Bank conducted by the Managing committee is recommended to be rescinded as per Ext.R3(b) order consequent to Ext.R3(a) complaint filed by the 3rd respondent and ordering an enquiry by the 2nd respondent in terms of the same. According to the counsel, the election cannot be conducted in view of Ext.R3(b). In my considered opinion, the said subject matter is also beyond the scope of consideration in this writ petition, since the sole issue put forth by the petitioner is in respect of the power of the 1st respondent to pass an order rejecting the resolution of the society requiring to conduct election on a particular date. However, learned counsel has invited my attention to Rule 35A and canvassed the proposition, not much earlier than 60 days, a committee is not vested with authority to pass a resolution and seek to conduct the election. Learned counsel has pointed out two aspects with respect to the Act and Rules; (1) a committee is put in office for a period of 5 years, so the existing committee is to continue in office for a period of 5 years by virtue of Sec.28 of the Act. (2) If after W.P.(C) No.26608 of 2016 19 the election, the committee does not vacate the office, then the newly elected committee will not get a full term of 5 years in view of the mandatory requirement contained under Sec.28 of the Act. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel, the decision taken by the 1st respondent as per the impugned order is in accordance with law, requiring any manner of interference. So also, learned counsel has pointed out that, by virtue of the powers conferred under Sec.28B of the Act and Rule 35A of the Rules, the 1st respondent is not expected to be a mute spectator, to the steps taken by the committee to conduct the election, and if the resolution is in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 1st respondent is vested with sufficient powers to correct the same in accordance with law.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S P Chaly - Full Document

Smt.Lalitha Muraleedharan vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 3 November, 2015

14. It is also relevant to note that the exemption under Section 7 of the Special Economic Zones Act, in relation to tax liability with reference to any enactment mentioned under the first schedule [Central Statute], can be claimed only subject to the terms/conditions/limitations as may be prescribed. As such, the benefit under Section 7, if at all any, can be claimed only on issuance of Rules in this regard, in exercise of the rule making power given under the Statute, and till such time, the provision can only remain dormant. It will get activated only on formulation of necessary rules prescribing the terms/conditions/limitations and never before. This is more so since it is a matter of 'exemption' W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 15 : from the existing position as to the liability to satisfy tax. The scope of similar provision in the Act and as to the dormancy had come up for scrutiny of a Full Bench of this Court [in relation to the amendment in Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules thereunder] and the position in this regard has already been explained as per the decision reported in 2016 (3) KLT 551 [Pradeep U.R. Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Election Comission - to which one of us was a member (PRRM (J)]. We find support from the said ruling as well.
Kerala High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - P R Menon - Full Document

Sudheesh M vs The State Co-Opertive Election ... on 26 February, 2021

6. The learned senior counsel in W.P.(C) 1783/2021 assailing Ext.P6 contended that the above order was passed by the Tribunal in excess of its authority and evidenced total non application of mind. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned order had held that in the election conducted to the managing committee on 7/8/2016, a preliminary voters list was published consisting of 3294 members. However, the then returning officer who was appointed by the election commission had held that several members were disqualified and confined the final voters list to 1670- members. The challenge in the proceedings before the Tribunal was against the decision of the returning officer. The tribunal held that such a provision was incorporated by amendment to section 19 A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and Rule 18A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. The Tribunal held that, this Court in Pradeep v. Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission 2016 (3) KLT 551 FB)had declared that the amendment was not a good law in view of the decision in Surendran v. V.Poovattur East Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2015(3) KLT SN 20 Case No.27) and all the formalities contemplated under section 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act has to be complied with before decision is taken by the returning officer. It was consequently held that the right of the returning officer to declare that the membership is cancelled under the caption "not an active member" was per se illegal.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Thomas - Full Document

For Information Purpose Only vs Thasveer Hassan on 26 February, 2021

6. The learned senior counsel in W.P.(C) 1783/2021 assailing Ext.P6 contended that the above order was passed by the Tribunal in excess of its authority and evidenced total non application of mind. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned order had held that in the election conducted to the managing committee on 7/8/2016, a preliminary voters list was published consisting of 3294 members. However, the then returning officer who was appointed by the election commission had held that several members were disqualified and confined the final voters list to 1670- members. The challenge in the proceedings before the Tribunal was against the decision of the returning officer. The tribunal held that such a provision was incorporated by amendment to section 19 A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and Rule 18A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. The Tribunal held that, this Court in Pradeep v. Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission 2016 (3) KLT 551 FB)had declared that the amendment was not a good law in view of the decision in Surendran v. V.Poovattur East Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2015(3) KLT SN 20 Case No.27) and all the formalities contemplated under section 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act has to be complied with before decision is taken by the returning officer. It was consequently held that the right of the returning officer to declare that the WP(C) 4560/2021 5/6 membership is cancelled under the caption "not an active member" was per se illegal.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Thomas - Full Document

The Karuvanthiruthy Service ... vs K.T.Sunil Kumar on 26 February, 2021

6. The learned senior counsel in W.P.(C) 1783/2021 assailing Ext.P6 contended that the above order was passed by the Tribunal in excess of its authority and evidenced total non application of mind. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned order had held that in the election conducted to the managing committee on 7/8/2016, a preliminary voters list was published consisting of 3294 members. However, the then returning officer who was appointed by the election commission had held that several members were disqualified and confined the final voters list to 1670- members. The challenge in the proceedings before the Tribunal was against the decision of the returning officer. The tribunal held that such a provision was incorporated by amendment to section 19 A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and Rule 18A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. The Tribunal held that, this Court in Pradeep v. Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission 2016 (3) KLT 551 FB)had declared that the amendment was not a good law in view of the decision in Surendran v. V.Poovattur East Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2015(3) KLT SN 20 Case No.27) and all the formalities contemplated under section 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act has to be complied with before decision is taken by the returning officer. It was consequently held that the right of the returning officer to declare that the membership is cancelled under the caption "not an active member" was per se illegal.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Thomas - Full Document

Unknown vs Baiju P on 26 February, 2021

6. The learned senior counsel in W.P.(C) 1783/2021 assailing Ext.P6 contended that the above order was passed by the Tribunal in excess of its authority and evidenced total non application of mind. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned order had held that in the election conducted to the managing committee on 7/8/2016, a preliminary voters list was published consisting of 3294 members. However, the then returning officer who was appointed by the election commission had held that several members were disqualified and confined the final voters list to 1670- members. The challenge in the proceedings before the Tribunal was against the decision of the returning officer. The tribunal held that such a provision was incorporated by amendment to section 19 A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and Rule 18A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. The Tribunal held that, this Court in Pradeep v. Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission 2016 (3) KLT 551 FB)had declared that the amendment was not a good law in view of the decision in Surendran v. V.Poovattur East Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2015(3) KLT SN 20 Case No.27) and all the formalities contemplated under section 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act has to be complied with before decision is taken by the returning officer. It was consequently held that the right of the returning officer to declare that the membership is cancelled under the caption "not an active member" was per se illegal.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Thomas - Full Document

Laju P.V vs The State Co-Operative Election ... on 29 May, 2017

9. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents submitted that as per the judgment rendered by this Court in 'Pradeep U.R. v. Kerala State Co- operative Election Commissioner and others' [I.L.R 2015 (2) Kerala 80], it is not an inflexible rule that an election process which is halted has to be continued from that stage only notwithstanding the efflux of time, and the learned counsel has invited my attention to paragraph 4 of the said judgment, which read thus:
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S P Chaly - Full Document
1   2 Next