2017 (11) TMI 1972

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing direction to the 1st respondent to release the amounts due under the matured Fixed Deposits. 2. First respondent in W.P.(C) No.29294/2017 has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised in the writ petition. The paramount contention advanced by the 1st respondent is that, 1st respondent society is only a body Corporate within the meaning of section 9 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 having perpetual succession and common seal and hence have the power to hold property, enter into contract, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose, for which 1st respondent society was constituted. It is also stated that, section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st respondent bank. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, respective counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in the writ petition and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 5. The sole question to be considered is whether the direction as sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition to release matured fixed deposit amount can be granted invoking the power of discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said issue was considered by a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(C) No.18243/2015 filed against the 1st respondent society, in W.P(C) No.29294/2017, and held as per the judgment dated 5.7.2017 that, the nature of the provisions and the regul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervision and control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Even though petitioner has approached the Registrar of Co-operative Societies seeking appropriate directions, no direction was issued. In that view of the matter also, it can be seen that, the writ petition is perfectly maintainable against the 1st respondent society. 8. Moreover, the amount due under the fixed deposit receipts are not under dispute. The sole dispute raised during the course of the argument is that, the said amount covered under the fixed deposit receipts are actually received by the 1st respondent as a loan. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, I do not find any such contentions raised. Moreover, from the fixed deposit receipts, it is evid....