Madras High Court
Great Lakes Multi-State Co-Operative vs The Central Registrar Of Cooperative ... on 9 May, 2024
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 21.12.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.05.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)Nos.25037 and 25038 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.21247 and 21248 of 2023
Great Lakes Multi-State Co-operative
Housing Society Limited,
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer,
S.Sakthivel,
No.76/190, South Car Street,
Srivilliputhu – 626 125,
Virudhunagar District.
Tamil Nadu. ... Petitioner in both WPs
Vs.
1.The Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Ministry of Cooperation,
Floor-1, Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan,
Lodhi Road, CGO Complex,
New Delhi – 110 003.
2.R.Ramesh,
Retired District Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Returning Officer for election of Board of Directors of
Great Lakes Multi-State Co-operative Housing Society Limited,
Plot No.16, Sri Subalakshmi Nivas,
Thillaigaga Nagar, 27th Street,
Nanganallur,
Chennai – 600 061.
1/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Lourdunadhan,
Retired District Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing),
Care of Address:
Plot No.16, Sri Subalakshmi Nivas,
Thillaiganga Nagar, 27th Street,
Nanganallur,
Chennai – 600 061.
4.V.Kanageswari
5.A.Kannammal
6.A.Karpagam
7.G.Karuppiah
8.G.Manohar
9.S.Sekhar
10. K.Paramasivam
11.S.N.Mohamed Danish Haja
12.V.Suresh
3.S.Tonyraj
14.B.Kumaran
15.S.Rajakumari
16.K.Karthick Raja
17.M.Sankarammal ... Respondents in both WPs
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.25037 of 2023: Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ
of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned Election Proceedings dated 5.03.2023 by the 2nd respondent
for election of the respondents 11 to 17 as Board of Directors of Great
2/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Lakes Multi-State Co-operative Housing Society Limited for the period
16.03.2023 to 15.03.2028 and quash the same as illegal and consequently
direct the 1st respondent to cancel the impugned Certificate of
Registration of Amendment dated 04.09.2023 for change of place of
registered office of the Society from Srivilliputhur in Virudhunagar
District to Chennai.
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.25038 of 2023: Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ
of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order in No.L-11014/61/2023-L&M (FTS 119836) dated
27.09.2023 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and further
direct the 1st respondent to revoke or cancel the present login credentials
of the Petitioner Society in MSCS/CRCS Portal / Website
(https://mscs.dac.gov.in) granted to the respondents 11 to 17 and
consequently delete or remove all the fraudulent and fake Annual
Reports, Balance Sheet and Profit or Loss account, list of Board of
Directors and Office Bearers and other matters pertaining to the Great
Lakes Multi-State Co-operative Housing Society Limited that
fraudulently uploaded by the respondents 4 to 9 and 11 to 17 in the
website of the MSCS / CRCS Portal / Website (https://mscs.dac.gov.in)
and grant new login credentials to the petitioner Society.
For Petitioner : Mr.Guru Krishnakumar,
Senior Advocate
for Mr.A.Robinson
3/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For R1 : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
For R2 : Mr.P.Veerapandi
For R4,R7 & R8 : Mr.R.Aravindraj
For R5 & R6 : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Mahboob Athiff
For R9 : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Saravanan
For R11 to R16 : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For R3, R10 & R17: No appearance
ORDER
Orders were reserved in these writ petitions on 21.12.2023. It was
the last day of the three months roster period. After hearing both sides,
the counsel were requested to submit written notes. I was assigned other
duties by My Lord The Hon'ble Chief Justice during the months of
January and February, 2024. I was once again re-assigned the general
miscellaneous roster from March-2024 onwards. Due to sheer workload,
I could not pronounce orders in these two writ petitions. I am conscious
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly mandated that
judgments, if reserved, should be pronounced within three months. I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have overshot the time limit. However, counsel on either side did not file
any miscellaneous petition seeking rehearing. Even if the matters are de-
reserved, it will be once again, listed only before me. I therefore
proceed to pronounce the order notwithstanding the expiry of the time-
limit laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2.Great Lakes Multi-State Co-operative Housing Society Limited,
is the petitioner in both these writ petitions. The petitions have been
filed through Thiru.S.Sakthivel, who asserts that he is its Chief Executive
Officer. The petitioner-Society was registered as a Multi-State Co-
operative Society under Section 7 of the Multi-State Co-operative
Societies Act, 2002 (Act 39 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as "MSCS
Act, 2002") and the rules framed thereunder. The registration number of
the Society is MSCS/CR/817/2013. A copy of the Certificate of
Registration dated 29.04.2013 issued by the Central Registrar of
Cooperative Societies has been enclosed in the typed set of papers.
Thiru.S.Sakthivel, was the Chief Promoter of the Society. He was also
appointed as its Chief Executive Officer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The by-law of the Society was amended in the year 2014 and the
registered address of the Society became No.76/190, South Car Street,
Srivilliputhur-626125, Virudhunagar District, Tamil Nadu. A copy of the
Certificate of Registration of Amendment dated 03.07.2014 has been
enclosed in the typed set of papers. According to the writ petitioner,
respondents 4 to 8 herein who were elected to the Board of Directors
fraudulently executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated
23.06.2022 in favour of the 10th respondent herein empowering him to
alienate the property belonging to the Society situated at Alandur,
Chennai. The petitioner would further allege that illegal consideration
passed from 10th respondent to respondents 4 to 8. Therefore, after
issuing show cause notices, they were removed from the Board and also
the primary membership of the Society on 01.11.2022. The Board of
Members were elected in the election held on 01.11.2022. The office-
bearers were elected on 03.11.2022. This was duly intimated to the first
respondent vide letter dated 03.11.2022. It is the further stand of the
petitioner that this removal was communicated to respondents 4 to 8 on
02.11.2022 and their paid share capital was also returned on 03.11.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The grievance projected in the writ petitions is that while so,
respondents 4 to 8 have made it appear as if Thiru.S.Sakthivel, was
already removed as CEO on 20.03.2020 and that the 9th respondent was
appointed as CEO on 02.02.2021. One Thiru.R.Ramesh, Retired District
Registrar of Co-operative Societies purported to hold election on
15.03.2023 for electing the new Board of Directors. He issued
proceedings to the effect that respondents 11 to 17 were elected on
15.03.2023 and that their tenure will be from 16.03.2023 till 15.03.2028.
The 9th respondent herein also sent e-mail to the first respondent on
20.02.2023 for change of official e-mail address / mobile number and for
revocation of the existing login credentials for MSCS Portal. This
request was accepted by the first respondent and new login credentials
were generated. The respondents 11 to 17 also passed resolution for
change of address of the registered office of the society from
Srivilliputhur to Chennai. The resolution was accepted by the first
respondent who issued Certificate of Registration of Amendment dated
04.09.2023. Copy of the same has been enclosed in the typed set of
papers. The new registered office of the society is No.231,
Mamuthiyammankoil Street, Thazhambur, Karani, Chennai – 600 130.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.When this was questioned by Thiru.S.Sakthivel, the first
respondent passed an order dated 27.09.2023, requesting the Registrar of
Co-operative Housing Society of Government of Tamil Nadu to appoint
an arbitrator by exercising the delegated powers under Section 84(4) of
MSCS Act, 2002. The impugned order reads that the Arbitrator will
settle the dispute by passing an appropriate order in the matter. Thus, the
petitioner was relegated to avail the arbitral remedy. Challenging the
election proceedings, as well as the Certificate of Registration of
Amendment dated 04.09.2023, W.P.(MD)No.25037 of 2023 was filed.
Challenging the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the first respondent
for appointment of arbitrator and for revocation of the new login
credentials and for other reliefs, W.P(MD)No.25038 of 2023 was filed.
6.The Central Registrar of Cooperative Society, New Delhi, has
filed counter affidavit. Respondents 9 to 16 have vehemently contested
the matter and they have filed counter affidavits. Respondents 4 and 5
appeared to have defected to Thiru.S.Sakthivel's camp.
7.Heard the learned Senior Counsel on either side and also the
learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent. Both sides have filed written submissions.
8.I carefully considered the rival contentions and also went
through the written submission and the materials on record. The
following issues call for consideration :
(a) Whether the first respondent was right in registering the
amendment to the by-law providing for changing the registered
office of the society from Srivilliputhur to Chennai?.
(b) Whether the first respondent was right in revoking the existing
login credentials and issuing new login credentials to the
contesting respondents?.
(c) Whether the first respondent was justified in relegating
Thiru.S.Sakthivel to avail the arbitral remedy under Section 84 of
the MSCS Act, 2002?.
9.Let me take note of certain undisputed facts. Kanageswari,
Kannammal, Karpagam, Karuppiah and Manohar are Respondents 4 to 8
herein. Paramasivam is the 10th respondent. These individuals figured
as respondents 5 to 10 in W.P(MD)No.28238 of 2022. Great Lakes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Multi-State Cooperative Housing Society Limited, represented by its
CEO Thiru.S.Sakthivel was the petitioner therein. Respondents 4 to 8
herein had executed Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2022 in favour of the
10th respondent herein empowering him to alienate the society's property
located in Alandur, Chennai. Registration of the document by the Sub
Registrar Office, Radhapuram was set aside by me vide order dated
25.01.2023 on the ground of violation of Sections 28 and 64(A) of the
Registration Act, 1908.
10.It has been convincingly demonstrated by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that substantial amounts have
been deposited in the bank accounts of respondents 4 to 8 by the 10th
respondent herein. It is the definite case of the petitioner that this
triggered initiation of action against respondents 4 to 8. It was proposed
to remove them both from the Board as well as primary membership of
the Society and to hold fresh election on 01.11.2022 for electing new
Board of Directors. The first respondent was intimated about these
developments vide communication dated 11.10.2022. Publication was
made in Dina Thanthi. It is a fact that intimation about the developments
was communicated to the first respondent on 03.11.2022. In fact,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents 4 to 8 do not contest the averments made in the affidavits
filed in support of the writ petitions. In fact, two of them have
specifically conceded and accepted the allegations made in the affidavit
filed in support of these writ petitions and went to the extent of stating
that the writ petitions may be allowed.
11.The 9th respondent's claim that he is the Chief Executive
Officer of the Society rests entirely on the resolution said to have been
passed on 20.03.2020 removing Thiru.Sakthivel from the said post.
According to the 9th respondent, this resolution was passed by
respondents 4 to 8. His claim stands completely undermined on account
of the stand now taken by them before this Court. Respondents 4, 7 and 8
have not filed any counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the
writ petitioner. They have been served and they also entered appearance
through counsel. The rule of non-traverse will apply. Respondents 5 and
6 filed common counter-affidavit admitting the petitioner's case. They
also filed written submissions through their counsel characterizing the
election said to have been held on 14.03.2023 electing respondents 11 to
17 as illegal and fraudulent. The notes run to 30 pages. Respondents 5
and 6 call upon this Court to allow these writ petitions as prayed for. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this background, the 9th respondent may not have any legs to stand.
12.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would
point out that both the first respondent as well as the respondents 4 to 8
had been informed about the removal of respondents 4 to 8 both from the
Board of Directors as well as from primary membership and that
respondents 4 to 8 never challenged their removal.
13.The moot question is whether the version projected by the
contesting respondents that Thiru.S.Sakthivel was removed from the post
of CEO on 20.03.2020 and that the 9th respondent was appointed as
CEO on 02.02.2021 could be true?
14.To answer this issue, I invoke Section 114 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. It enables the court to have regard to the common
course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business
while presuming the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have
happened. If really Thiru.S.Sakthivel was removed on 20.03.2020 and
the 9th respondent herein was appointed as CEO on 02.02.2021, the
persons who did so would have soon thereafter informed the first
respondent accordingly. Contemporaneous communications would have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been sent to the first respondent. Non-intimation after the alleged
removal of Thiru.Sakthivel and the alleged appointment of the ninth
respondent soon after the events renders the claim of the contesting
respondents improbable. Admittedly, information regarding the so-called
removal of Thiru.Sakthivel was sent only on 10.11.2022. As already
noted, on 01.11.2022 itself, respondents 4 to 8 had been removed. It is a
matter of record that on 03.11.2022, letters intimating their removal were
sent. Respondents 4 to 8 had admittedly received the said
communications. In these circumstances, the claim made in the letter
dated 10.11.2022 could not have been taken as gospel truth by the first
respondent.
15.As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner, the first respondent himself has recognized and
acknowledged Thiru.S.Sakthivel as the CEO of the Society even as on
13.02.2023. The response elicited by Thiru.S.Sakthivel by invoking the
Right to Information Act, 2005 has been enclosed at Page No.295 of the
typed set of papers. Seven days later, the first respondent received the
following e-mail from the ninth respondent on 20.02.2023 :
"Respected Sir/Madam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Please find the attached.
We are the registered cooperative society functioning in
Tamilnadu, Pondicherry and Kerala in the name and style of
The Great Lakes Multi State Co Operative Housing Society ltd
and registered with the Reg No MSCS/CR817/2013. As per our
letter dated 10/11/2022 addressed to Central Cooperative
Registrar at New Delhi office, we had removed Mr Sakthivel
the then CEO of the society due to his criminal involvement
using the name of our reputed society. Further the President
and director of the society have appointed me as a New CEO
(Sekar.S S/O Subramaniam) with effect from 02/02/2021.
Hence we need to update all those things to your goods Self
office for reporting purpose as per by law, act and rule. I have
attached the relevant records for your perusal.
Therefore we would request your goods self to revoke the
access of User ID pass word to new phone number
7338887778 and mail ID [email protected]
from old phone number 7708700000 for the of welfare of the
society.
With Warm regard,
For Great Lake Multi State Co-Operative Society
Sekar Subramaniam, CEO "
When vide letter dated 13.02.2023, the first respondent had recognized
Thiru.S.Sakthivel as CEO, I fail to understand as to how the first
respondent could have glibly accepted the claim made by the 9th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent through e-mail dated 20.02.2023. The creation of new login
credentials could not have been casually done. These are serious matters
which have serious implications. Some kind of enquiry was warranted.
The first respondent ought to have verified whether the contents of the e-
mail deserve to be accepted and acted upon. Only in Bible, the Lord
assures "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock,
and it shall be opened unto you: - Matthew 7:7". The 9th respondent
asks and it is given. I must remind the first respondent that he is a lesser
mortal and as a statutory authority, he is bound by the statutory
limitations.
16.The following discrepancies in the claim made by the
contesting private respondents have been highlighted in the written
submissions filed by the petitioner :
" I. Discrepancies in Annual General Body Meetings:
i. On 26.03.2023, two AGMs are claimed to have been
convened. One AGM chaired by R4 through R9 as CEO and the
other chaired by R11 through R9 as CEO.
ii. Per contra, AGM was alleged to have been convened on
13.03.2023 whereby it was decided to hold the elections of the
Society on 15.03.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
iii. As per the attendance sheet of the alleged AGM dated
13.03.2023, one K.Azhagammal and R.Nachiammal have signed
their attendance in Tamil whereas the Membership Register
available with the Society shows that they have affixed only
their thumb impression denoting their incapacity to read or
write.
II. Discrepancies in Number of Members:
i. The list of members submitted by R11-R16 before this Hon'ble
Court showing a total of 468 members as of 2020 does not
correlate with either the number of 227 members as per the
purported AGM dated 26.03.2023 or with the actual number of
616 members as recorded in the Membership Registry available
with the Petitioner CEO.
ii. The list of members annexed along with the Counter of the R2
does not contain the names of R4-R6 and R8, under whose
instance R2 was appointed as Returning Officer for the conduct
of the purported elections.
III. Discrepancies in Annual Returns/Balance Sheets:
i. The balance sheet for 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022
show the opening and closing balance for the corresponding
years Rs.22,700 (227 members x Rs.100 per share per member
as per Bye-Law No.7 of the Society). However, as per the list of
members submitted by R11-R16 having 468 members, the
balance sheet for the corresponding years should have reflected
an amount of Rs.46,800 (468 members x Rs.100 per share per
members) or higher and not Rs.22,700.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17.The contesting respondents for their part paint
Thiru.S.Sakthivel in dark colors (I am not sure if this phrase is
appropriate. Is not the word “dark” racist?”. Let me quote Robert
Mugabe: "Racism will never end as long as white cars are still using
black tyres. Racism will never end if people still use black to symbolize
bad luck and white for peace. Racism will never end if people still wear
white clothes to weddings and black clothes to funerals. Racism will
never end as long as those who pay their bills are blacklisted and not
white-listed. Even when playing snooker, you haven’t won until you’ve
sunk the black ball, and the white ball must remain on the table! But I
don’t care; as long as I’m still using white toilet paper I’m happy". The
Hon'ble Supreme Court recently brought out “Handbook on Combating
Gender Stereotypes”. May be another handbook on colour stereotypes is
due!. What might have appeared as a needless digression has become
topical thanks to Sam Pitroda. His podcast has been cast as game of skin
by those who have skin in the game). It is pointed out by them that
Thiru.S.Sakthivel is accused in two criminal cases: i) Crime No.
345/2018 for the offences under Section 420 of IPC on the file of
Virudhuangar West Police Station; and ii) Crime No.203/2019 for the
offences under Section 420 of IPC on the file of the Egmore Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Station, Chennai. The learned Senior Counsel for the contesting
respondents points out that Thiru.S.Sakthivel was in jail and that the
allegations made against him are fairly serious.
18.The question before me is not whether Thiru.S.Sakthivel, is an
angel or a paragon of virtue. The question is how the first respondent
should have conducted himself. The order impugned in WP(MD)No.
25038 of 2023 has been passed under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-
operative Societies Act, 2002 by the first respondent. Section 84 of the
Act is as follows :
"84: Reference of disputes.–(1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force, if any dispute [other than a dispute regarding
disciplinary action taken by a multi-State cooperative
society against its paid employee or an industrial
dispute as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)] touching the
constitution, management or business of a multi-State
co-operative society arises–
(a) among members, past members and persons
claiming through members, past members and deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
members, or
(b) between a member, past members and persons
claiming through a member, past member or deceased
member and the multi-State co-operative society, its
board or any officer, agent or employee of the multi-
State co-operative society or liquidator, past or present,
or
(c) between the multi-State co-operative society or
its board and any past board, any officer, agent or
employee, or any past officer, past agent or past
employee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased
officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the
multi-State co-operative society, or
(d) between the multi-State co-operative society
and any other multi-State co-operative society, between
a multi-State co-operative society and liquidator of
another multi-State co-operative society or between the
liquidator of one multi-State co-operative society and
the liquidator of another multi-State co-operative
society,
such dispute shall be referred to arbitration.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the
following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the
constitution, management or business of a multi-State
co-operative society, namely:--
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(a) a claim by the multi-State co-operative society
for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the
nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased
member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or
not;
(b) a claim by a surety against the principal
debtor where the multi-State co-operative society has
recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any
debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a
result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such
debt or demand is admitted or not;
(c) any dispute arising in connection with the
election of any officer of a multi-State co-operative
society.
(3) If any question arises whether a dispute
referred to arbitration under this section is or is not a
dispute touching the constitution, management or
business of a multi-State co-operative society, the
decision thereon of the arbitrator shall be final and shall
not be called in question in any court.
(4) Where a dispute has been referred to
arbitration under sub-section (1), the same shall be
settled or decided by the arbitrator to be appointed by
the Central Registrar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(5) Save as otherwise provided under this Act, the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(26 of 1996) shall apply to all arbitration under this Act
as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for
settlement or decision under the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
The aforesaid provision mandates that dispute touching the constitution,
the management or the business of the Society should be referred to
arbitration. I hold that the reference must be made the moment any
dispute touching the aforesaid aspects "arises". Black's Law Dictionary
defines "arise" as “to originate; to come to one's attention; to emerge in
one's consciousness". In P.Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon,
the following definition is found "come into existence or notice or
presents itself". In this case, the dispute arose when the private
respondents / contesting respondents staked claim. Admittedly, Thiru.
S.Sakthivel was the Chief Promoter of the Society. Even the respondents
do not dispute that Thiru.S.Sakthivel was first appointed as its Chief
Executive Officer. On 03.11.2022, Thiru.Sakthivel had informed the first
respondent about the removal of respondents 4 to 8 from the Board of
Directors as well as the primary membership of the society. This
communication was preceded by the letter dated 11.10.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Respondents 4 to 8 have not challenged their removal. It is in this
background that the first respondent received letter dated 10.11.2022
from respondents 4 to 8 asserting for the first time that Thiru.Sakthivel
was removed on 20.03.2020. The concluding para of the said letter
(with all grammatical errors) is extracted below :
“So we society inform your Office of the Central
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, in future Mr.Sakthivel
giving any amendment or any changes by laws or any others
from the name of Great Lakes Multi-State Co-operative
Housing Society Limited is fully false statement and not take
to be consider. We the Board of directors are the only legal
persons of this society and we have only power to give any
amendments or take any changes on behalf of this society.
Mr.Sakthivel is not entitled to relating this society, so we
inform you Mr.Sakthivel has no possession and no relation
in this Great Lakes Multi-State Co-operative Housing
Society Limited.”
The moment this communication was received, the first respondent ought
to have treated it as giving rise to a dispute. Section 84 of the Act is to
the effect that 'if any dispute touching the management or business of a
multi-State cooperative society arises.... such dispute shall be referred to
arbitration'. The provision must be understood as mandating that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
moment the dispute arises, the statutory authority must refer it to
arbitration. He should not do anything else before making reference. He
cannot alter the status quo and thereafter refer the dispute to arbitration.
We say the sun rises when we see the upper rim of the sun appearing on
the horizon. Section 84 is followed by Section 85 which provides for
limitation. To compute limitation, there must be a starting point. The
period of limitation is reckoned therefrom. The starting point is the
moment when the dispute arises. Of course, the authority must be
satisfied that a case for reference has been made out. Reference cannot
be made mechanically. There must be due application of mind.
19.In this case, the first respondent had made the reference. The
question is when and at whose instance, the reference could have been
made. Since the letter dated 10.11.2022 written by the respondents 4 to
8 directly touched upon the management and business of the Society,
the reference must have been made at that stage.
20.Thiru.S.Sakthivel was acknowledged as the CEO of the Society
as late as on 13.02.2023. It is only thereafter the 9th respondent wrote to
the first respondent for generating new login credentials. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11 to 17 wrote on 04.09.2023 to the first respondent about the change of
office address. I have already held that dispute arose as early as on
10.11.2022 and that at that stage itself, the first respondent ought to have
referred the matter for arbitration. He did not do so. Instead, the first
respondent chose to endorse the claims made by the contesting
respondents and undermine the position of the incumbents.
21.The first respondent had acted in total breach of the statutory
provisions as well as the principles of natural justice. By not putting the
incumbents on notice, the first respondent had committed the first
illegality. By not relegating the private respondents to go before the
arbitrator, he committed the second illegality. I therefore, have no
hesitation to set aside the action of the first respondent.
22.Post – 10.11.2022, the first respondent did the following :
a) Recognizing the proceedings dated 15.03.2023 issued by the
second respondent.
b) Registering the amendment of the by-laws providing for change
of office address from Srivilliputhur to Tharamani, Chennai on
04.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
c) Generating a new set of credentials as sought for by the 9th
respondent and
d) granting access to the contesting respondents to upload certain
documents and returns.
23.There is one other aspect. The petitioner herein had earlier
filed W.P(MD)No.16759 of 2023. The prayer in the writ petition was as
follows:
"Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the 1st respondent to revoke or cancel the present
login credentials of the petitioner society in MSCS portal /
website (https:mscs.dac.gov.in) granted to the respondents 2 to
6 and consequently delete or remove all the fraudulent and fake
annual reports, balance sheet and profit and loss account, list
of board of directors and office bearers and others matters
pertaining to the great lakes multi-state co-operative housing
society that fraudulently uploaded by the respondent 2 to 9 in
the website of the MSCS portal (https://mscs.dac.gov.in) and
grant new login credentials to the petitioner society by
considering the representations dated 15.04.2023 and
16.05.2023. "
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The writ petition was disposed on 24.08.2023 in the following terms:
"6. Considering the request of the learned Counsel
for the petitioner, this Court without expressing anything
on the merits of the claim directs the 1st respondent to
consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2023
and take a decision and pass appropriate orders within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Till the disposal of the petitioner's
representation, the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 6
shall not login to the societies portal. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed."
The order in the writ petition was passed only in the presence of the
counsel for the first respondent. The first respondent cannot plead that he
did not receive the certified copy of the said order. It may be a defense in
an action for contempt of court. So long as the said order is holding the
field, it must be given effect to in full. Access should not have been
provided to the contesting respondents to the MSCS Portal. In this case,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in breach of the direction given by the learned Judge of this Court which
order has become final, access was given. R11 to R17 logged into the
portal on 06.09.2023 to upload the election proceedings of the so-called
new Board of Directors and the amendment for change of address from
Srivilliputhur to Chennai. Any action done in violation of the Court's
order ought to be undone (vide order dated 20.01.2022 made in Cont
P(MD)No.1017 of 2021 (N.Balakrishnan v. R.Seethalakshmi I.A.S).
The illegally uploaded documents and returns shall be taken down. For
the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders are set aside. The first
respondent shall first restore the position that prevailed prior to the
arising of the dispute. The one who seeks to alter the status quo must be
relegated to the arbitral remedy. In this case, the contesting respondents
challenge the existing state of affairs. If any fresh representation is
received from them, the first respondent shall pass an appropriate order
under Section 84 of the Act.
24.These Writ Petitions are allowed accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.05.2024
NCC :Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/ No
pnn/skm
To
1.The Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Ministry of Cooperation, Floor-1, Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan,
Lodhi Road, CGO Complex, New Delhi – 110 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
pnn/skm
Pre-delivery Order made in
W.P(MD)Nos.25037 and 25038 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.21247 and 21248 of 2023
Dated : 09.05.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
