Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K. JAYAKUMAR, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI versus THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K. JAYAKUMAR, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI v. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERARIVE - WP(C) No. 32064 of 2006(P) [2006] RD-KL 2386 (4 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32064 of 2006(P)

1. K. JAYAKUMAR, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERARIVE
... Respondent

2. MURUNTHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK

3. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MURUNTHAL

4. V.S. ANILKUMAR, S/O.SREEHARAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

Dated :04/12/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 32064 of 2006 (P)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 4th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

Under order dated 04/10/2006, the first respondent has disqualified one Anil Kumar of the second respondent Society. He came before this Court preferring W.P.(C) No.31249/2006. Disposing of the same, this Court directed him to challenge the disqualification order before the Government. However, a stay of the said order dated 04/10/2006 was given for a period of three weeks.

2. The prayer of the writ petitioner, herein, is to direct the first respondent Joint Registrar to further direct the third respondent Board of Directors, not to take any policy decisions, with regard to the management of the second respondent Society, as there is no quorum for the Board of Directors.

3. The Government Pleader submitted that after the disqualification and loss of quorum of the board of directors, an Administrator was appointed. However, because of the stay W.P.(C) No.32064/2006 (P) 2 of three weeks granted to the writ petitioner in W.P(C) No.31249/2006, the board of directors continue in office and Administrator could not take over the administration.

4. As I have already directed the fourth respondent, who preferred W.P.(C) No.31249/2006, to approach the Government, I am of the view that the writ petitioner may also approach the Government, if so advised. The matter is being now seized by the Government. Hence, it is not necessary to direct the first respondent Joint Registrar to pass intervening orders on the matter that is under consideration of the Government, in the appellate jurisdiction.

5. However, if the first respondent Joint Registrar is of the opinion that any orders are to be passed for the best interest of the second respondent Society, he may do so, according to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, therein. The writ petition is closed as above. (J.M.JAMES) Judge ms


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.