Madras High Court
Managing Director vs T.Gevichennan on 18 April, 2022
C.R.P(NPD)No.2018 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.2018 of 2016
Managing Director,
Uthangarai Agricultural Producers,
Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.,
Uthangarai,
Krishnagiri District.
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.T.Gevichennan
2.The Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Societies,
Dharmapuri.
3.The Sale Officer/ Co-operative Sub Registrar
And Field Officer, Uthangarai
C/o, Uthangarai Agricultural Producers
Co-operative Marketing Soceity Ltd.,
Uthangarai,
Krishnagiri District.
…Respondents
This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, praying to set aside the judgment and decree in C.M.A(CS)No.11 of
2015 dated 01.04.2016 on the file of the Co-operative Tribunal (Principal
District Judge), Krishnagiri.
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(NPD)No.2018 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy
For Respondent – 1 : No Appearance
For Respondent - 2 : Dr.S.Suriya,
Additional Govt. Pleader
For Respondent - 3 : Dismissed vide order dated
02.08.2018 in
C.R.P(NPD)No.2018 of 2016
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgement and decree passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Co-operative Tribunal (Principal District Court) Krishnagiri in
C.M.A(CS)No.11 of 2015 dated 01.04.2016, allowing the appeal filed by the
first respondent, seeking to set aside the attachment and sale proceedings
dated 10.08.2015 passed in E.P.No.58 of 2007-08 in Surcharge Award
No.6473/2002 Sa.Pa.2 of the second respondent.
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:
The first respondent was an employee of the petitioner society. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(NPD)No.2018 of 2016
petitioner society lodged a complaint against the first respondent stating that
he has misused the cash loan provided for the public distribution system and
sold the petitioner society's cotton goods to the traders in sale auction and
allowed the traders to take the said goods without making any payment to the
society. Therefore, the second respondent vide Surcharge proceedings dated
07.06.2004, levied a sum of Rs.1,60,75,887.93 as surcharge on the first
respondent. Aggrieved over the said Surcharge proceedings, the first
respondent has preferred an appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal
(Principal District Judge), Krishnagiri and the same was allowed vide
judgment and decree dated 01.04.2016. Challenging the said judgment and
decree, the petitioner society has come before this Court with the present
Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of
this Court that in a case of similar nature, this Court has passed an order in
favour of the petitioner therein. In support of his contention he has relied on
the common order passed by this Court in C.R.P(PD) Nos.2748 to 2751 of
2013, dated 17.02.2017, wherein, this Court has held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(NPD)No.2018 of 2016
“11. It is the specific case of the petitioner society that the loss
suffered by it on account of the dereliction of duty on the part of the first
respondent in each of the revisions and other employees of the said society
had not been made good. It is strange as to how the first respondent in
each of the revisions and other employees, allowed traders to take away
the cotton goods even without securing the amount payable by them or
receiving advance for such sale. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that
the allegations levelled against the first respondent in each of the civil
revision is grave.
12. When such grave allegations have been levelled against the
first respondent in each of the revisions and surcharge proceedings have
been passed, the Tribunal, which is the Appellate Authority, ought to have
considered the veracity of the statement of accounts produced before it. It
is disputed by the petitioner society that the veracity of the said document
was not verified by the Tribunal with reference to the originals, nor the
person who made such statement of account was examined to justify its
veracity.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner society suffered loss on account of
the act of the first respondent in each of the revisions. If the first
respondent is to prove that the loss suffered by the petitioner society had
been made good by production of any statement of account or any other
document, it should be only in the manner known to law, after putting on
notice the petitioner society. That apart, it is not in dispute that the
disputed document has been admitted in evidence without proof. Without
proper proof affidavit, the said disputed document ought not to have been
relied upon by the Tribunal.
14. For the foregoing reasons, these revisions are allowed and the
impugned order dated 04.10.2012 is set aside and the matter is remitted to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(NPD)No.2018 of 2016
the District Co-operative Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Krishnagiri,
to consider the matter afresh, without being swayed away by the
observations made above, and pass appropriate orders within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”
He therefore prayed that the similar relief may be granted to the
petitioner herein.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and also, following the order passed by this Court in C.R.P (PD)
No.2748 to 2751 of 2013, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 01.04.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded
back to the Co-operative Tribunal (Principal District Court), Krishnagiri, for
fresh consideration. The learned Principal District Judge, Co-operative
Tribunal (Principal District Court) Krishnagiri is directed to re-consider the
matter and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the
above observations. No costs.
18.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(NPD)No.2018 of 2016
vm
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
vm
To
The Co-operative Tribunal (Principal District Judge),
Krishnagiri.
C.R.P(NPD)No.2018 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(NPD)No.2018 of 2016
18.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
