Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

REGI PAILY, S/O.PAILY versus THE OONNUKAL SERVICE CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


REGI PAILY, S/O.PAILY v. THE OONNUKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE - WP(C) No. 32623 of 2006(H) [2006] RD-KL 2843 (7 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32623 of 2006(H)

1. REGI PAILY, S/O.PAILY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE OONNUKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent

2. THE KAVALANGAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

For Petitioner :SRI.R.KIRAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :07/12/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

W.P.(C). 32623/2006 Dated this the 7th day of December, 2006

JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner is the member of the first respondent, Co-operative bank. The area of the first respondent as well as that of the second respondent had been fixed at the time of granting permission to function within the respective areas. However, the writ petitioner apprehends that the third respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, on the application of the second respondent, is intending to give permission to the second respondent, to open a new branch within that area, which would overlap the area of functioning of the first respondent. Ext.P3 representation had already been given to the third respondent and the same is pending.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned senior Government Pleader for the third respondent.

3. Considering the facts on record as well as the W.P.(C).32623/2006 2 provisions contained in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, I direct the third respondent to hear respondents 1 and 2 as well as the writ petitioner and dispose of Ext.P3 representation, as per the law.

4. Till the time a final decision is taken on Ext.P3 representation, the second respondent shall not be permitted to open and operate a new branch within the area of operation of the first respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs


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.