TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he irregularity, the petitioner remitted the entire amount. However, Ext.P3 charge sheet was served on her. An enquiry was held into the charges in which she was found guilty and based on that report, Ext.P2 dismissal order was passed. She moved the Joint Registrar, challenging Ext.P2 under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The said application was allowed by the Joint Registrar. The Government affirmed the said decision of the Joint Registrar in appeal. Those orders were challenged before this Court by filing OP Nos.14488 & 14528/03. The said Original Petitions were disposed of by Ext.P4 Judgment, setting aside the orders of the Joint Registrar and the Government and also directing the Joint Registrar to reconsider the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transferred to the Co- operative Arbitration Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 70B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. So, the orders of the Joint Registrar and the Government are without jurisdiction. Therefore, the matter may be remitted to be reconsidered by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, it is submitted. I heard the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 also. He supported the impugned order of the Government. The learned Government Pleader also was heard in the matter. That the petitioner has committed misappropriation and falsification of accounts, is a finding of fact, which cannot be disturbed by this Court. The Registrar held in favour of the petitioner, taking note of the fact that the entire amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted by filing a review. Otherwise, the order can be corrected, only in appeal. As long as the Division Bench Judgment remains in force, no one can ignore that. In Sooryanathan v. State of Kerala (2004(1) KLT 383), this Court considered the contention regarding the maintainability of an appeal filed after the period of limitation was over, based on the directions of this Court. In the said decision, it was held as follows : "Further, Ext.P3 cannot be attacked for the delay in filing appeal as the same was filed as per the directions of this Court in OP No.29809/01. The High Court is a superior Court of unlimited jurisdiction. The concept of 'court of unlimited jurisdiction' is discussed in paragraph 713 in Halsbury's Laws of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jection to the jurisdiction of one of the superior courts of general jurisdiction must show what other court has jurisdiction, so as to make it clear that the exercise by the superior court of its general jurisdiction is unnecessary. The High Court, for example, is a court of universal jurisdiction and superintendency in certain classes of actions and cannot be deprived of its ascendancy by showing that some other court could have entertained the particular action.' (Though the above reference is to English Courts, the principle would squarely apply to the superior courts in India also.). 16. Referring to the said passage and relying on the decision of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar (AIR 1967 SC 1), a two Judge Bench of this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness and voidability form part of the English law of contract. They are inapplicable to orders made by a court of unlimited jurisdiction in the course of contentious litigation. Such an order is either irregular or regular. If it is irregular, it can be set aside by the court that made it upon application that court; it is regular it can only be set aside by an appellate court upon appeal if there is one to which an appeal lies.' Therefore, I find nothing wrong in the action of the 1st respondent in entertaining the appeal and granting relief to the 4th respondent based on the direction of this Court in OP No.29809/01." In view of the above principles, I find nothing wrong with the Registrar, hearing and deciding the petition ....