TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders cooperative society to release fixed deposit amounts promptly, upholding terms of deposit receipts.</h1> <h3>Marangattupilly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Versus Gandhigram Agro Based Industrial Co-Operative Society Ltd, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies (General)</h3> Marangattupilly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Versus Gandhigram Agro Based Industrial Co-Operative Society Ltd, General Manager, District Industries ... Issues:1. Interpretation of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 regarding the authority and powers of cooperative societies.2. Whether cooperative societies registered under the Act fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.3. Maintainability of a writ petition against a cooperative society seeking the release of matured fixed deposit amounts.4. Power of discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant directions for the release of matured fixed deposit amounts.5. Legality of a cooperative society carrying out banking business without a license from the RBI.6. Availability of public law remedy against a cooperative society operating under the supervision of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.7. Dispute regarding the nature of amounts received under fixed deposit receipts.Analysis:1. The judgment involved a cooperative bank seeking the release of amounts due under matured fixed deposits from the first respondent, a cooperative society. The first respondent contended that as a body corporate under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, it had the power to manage its affairs independently, with final authority vested in its general body of members.2. The first respondent argued that previous judgments, including those by the Apex Court and the High Court, had addressed the issue of whether cooperative societies registered under the Act could be considered state actors under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The court noted these references but focused on the specific facts of the case at hand.3. The court considered the maintainability of the writ petition against the cooperative society, emphasizing the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant directions for releasing the matured fixed deposit amounts. It cited a previous judgment that upheld the maintainability of such petitions against cooperative societies.4. Addressing the legality of the cooperative society conducting banking business without an RBI license, the court found that since the society operated under the supervision of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, a public law remedy was available to the petitioner.5. The court resolved the dispute over the nature of amounts received under fixed deposit receipts by examining the terms and conditions of the deposits. It concluded that the amounts were indeed deposited as fixed deposits and not as loans, as contended by the first respondent.6. Considering the facts and arguments presented, the court held in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondents to pay the amounts due under the matured fixed deposit receipts within a specified timeframe. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
