Mavelikkara Taluk Co-Operative ... vs Mavelikkara Taluk Co-Operative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6859 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942

              RP.No.878 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 27448/2017

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27448/2017(E) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2:

             MAVELIKKARA TALUK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEAD OFFICE,
             PULIMOODU JUNCTION, MAVELIKKARA-690 101

             BY ADVS.

             SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
             SRI.P.S.GIREESH
             SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
             C.R.ANILKUMAR
             ARJUN R NAIK
             K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR

RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS & RSPONDENT NO.1 & 3:

      1      N.PARAMESWARAN
             AGED 80 YEARS
             S/O.K.NARAYANAN NAIR,
             RESIDING AT PRASHANTH MALLASSERIL,
             THAZHAKKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA-691 102

      2      V.RADHAMANI KUNJAMMA
             AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.PARAMESWARAN,
             RESIDING AT PRASHANTH MALLASSERIL,
             THAZHAKKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA-691 102

      3      JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
             ALAPPUZHA

      4      THE BRANCH MANAGER,
             MAVELIKKARA TALUK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.707,
             THAZHAKKARA BRANCH-690 102


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION           ON
26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.878 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 27448/2017

                                      2


                                   ORDER

Dated this the 26th day of February 2021

This review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment

dated 24.08.2017 in WP(C) No.27448 of 2017, whereby the

following directions are issued.

"3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the respective counsel I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners can be permitted to approach the bank with appropriate representations. If any representation is filed within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment the same shall be considered within a week thereafter. If there are no legal impediments standing in the way of releasing the amounts, 50% of the amount shall be released to the petitioners forthwith and without any delay and the balance shall be released within 2 months thereafter."

The grounds raised for the review is that since an enquiry by

Vigilance was going in respect of misappropriation of more than

Rs.13 crores committed by then Managing Committee Members

and some of the employees, the entire documents were seized by

the Police Authorities and as such no effective defence could be

made when the writ petition was filed by the respondents in the

review petition. It also pointed out that the verification of

documents revealed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had availed

three loans to the tune of Rs.1,40,00,000/- by pledging their fixed

deposit receipts. Moreover, respondents have on their own RP.No.878 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 27448/2017

approached the bank and got the fixed deposits renewed for the

period of one year. It was also pointed out that these materials

and vital facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court

when the judgment was rendered in the writ petition.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the review petitioner

and the counsel appearing for the respondents in it.

3. In fact, in regard to the judgment in the writ petition,

Contempt Petition Nos.1940/2017 and 1946 of 2017 are pending

and they were posted together with the review petition. On

19.02.2021 on the basis of the submission made by the learned

counsel for the respondents in the review petition, he was directed

to produce the original receipts issued by the review petitioner.

Today several original receipts are produced before me. However,

learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that

the issue with respect to forged and fabricated fixed deposit

receipts are under scrutiny of the CBCID and therefore at this

point of time, whether the receipts produced by the writ

petitioners cannot be said to be a proper one. Anyhow, so far as

the review is concerned in the judgment in the writ petition itself

it was clearly stated that the amounts need be released only if

there are no legal impediments standing in the way. Therefore, it RP.No.878 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 27448/2017

can be clearly seen that it was not a blanket direction that was

issued by this Court to release the amounts, however, by making

an appropriate order protecting the interests of review petitioner

bank also. In that view of the matter, I do not think there are any

errors apparent on the face of the record so as to review the

judgment in the writ petition. Needless to say, review petition

fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE SCS RP.No.878 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 27448/2017

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 20.01.2017 IN CRIME NO.134/2017 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 13.12.2017 IN CRIME NO.58/CBCID EOW- 1/KLM/2017 SUBMITTED BY DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CBCID EOW-1, SUB UNIT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORTS UNDER SECTION 65 OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT.

ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORTS UNDER SECTION 68(1) OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT

ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGED OF THE REPORTS UNDER SECTION 68(2) OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT

ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2017 PASSED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-

OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) ALAPPUZHA APPOINTING A PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR

ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.44/2020 DATED 22.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM