Madras High Court
R.J.Gangatharan vs The Deputy Registrar Of on 25 February, 2025
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.14519 of 2023
R.J.Gangatharan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies /
Suo-Moto Surcharge Officer
Madurai Circle
Madurai
2.S.Madhalaiappan
3.K.Pandi
4.M.Jegadeeswaran
5.K.Paramanantham
6.G.Laxmi
7.M.Vijayalaxmi
_______________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:02:11 pm )
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
8.S.Lohanayagi
9.T.Palanikumar
10.B.Balasubramaniam
11.N.K.Alagarsamy
12.E.Manivel
13.B.Mariyappan
14.S.Velusamy
15.R.Devi
16.P.K.Selvaraj
17.S.Mohan
18.The Administrative Officer
A.3101, Madurai Milk Project
Employees Cooperative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.,
Aavin Complex, Sathamangalam
Madurai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil revision petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order dated
20.09.2023, made in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022, on the file of
the Principal District Judge, Madurai and to set aside the same.
_______________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:02:11 pm )
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Gandhi Associates
For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran
Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R18
Mr.M.Ganesan for R2
No appearance for R3, R5, R9 & R10
Mr.S.Karthick Ramkumar for R4
Mr.T.Ravichandran
for R6 to R8, R11, R12, R14 to R16
Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi for R13
Mr.S.Srikanth
for M/s.APN Law Associates for R17
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the appellant in C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of
2022, on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Madurai, filed an
application vide I.A.No.1 of 2023, seeking to club all the appeals that were
filed against the order dated 18.02.2021, passed in the surcharge proceedings
bearing Tha.Va.No.14/2019-2020.
2. The said surcharge proceedings, under Section 87 of the Tamil
Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, were initiated against several persons,
including the petitioner herein and the respondents 2 to 17 and by order
dated 18.02.2021, they were all held jointly and severally liable for the
amounts determined under the said surcharge proceedings.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:02:11 pm )
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.02.2021, the petitioner
herein filed C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022 and whereas, the respondents 2 to 17
have filed different appeals vide C.M.A.(CS) Nos.30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,
39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48 and 54 of 2021, before the Court of the Principal
District Judge, Madurai, and all these appeals are pending before the Court of
the Principal District Judge, Madurai.
4. Now, the application filed by the petitioner vide I.A.No.1 of 2023
seeking to club all the above said appeals i.e., C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022 and
C.M.A.(CS) Nos.30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48 and 54 of
2021 for disposal jointly has been dismissed by the learned Principal District
Judge, by order dated 20.09.2023, on the ground that this Court has fixed a
time frame for disposal of C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022 and in case, if the said
appeal is clubbed along with the other appeals, the said appeal could not be
disposed of within the time stipulated by this Court. Aggrieved by the said
order dated 20.09.2023, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision
petition.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:02:11 pm )
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner,
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 18
and respective learned counsels appearing for the respondents 2, 4, 6, 7, 8,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18. Though the respondents 3, 5, 9 & 10 have
been served and their names have been printed in the cause list, none
appeared on their behalf.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent opposed
the relief sought for in this civil revision petition, on the ground that all the
documents and evidence that are relied upon in the surcharge proceedings is
one and the same and the second respondent is only seeking to set aside the
entire surcharge proceedings but not seeking any other relief against any
other parties to the surcharge proceedings and therefore, there is no necessity
to club all the appeals for disposal jointly. He further submitted that there is
no property involved in the matter for the parties to make a rival claim over
the said property.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:02:11 pm )
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
7. This Court has care fully considered the above submissions
and does not find any substance and on the other hand, they are absurd, for
the reason that the liability was fixed against the petitioner as well as the
respondents 2 to 17 in the proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the Tamil
Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, is admittedly joint and several liability
and in case if the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the second respondent
comes to the conclusion that the second respondent is not liable for the
liability fixed under the surcharge order, the said liability is to be shifted to
some other parties and in case if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion
that any other party is responsible, it need not set aside the entire order, but
it is equally competent to shift the said responsibility. Obviously, the second
respondent would have impleaded all other persons, who are held liable under
the surcharge order, as parties to the appeal filed by him in C.M.A.(CS) No.30
of 2021.
8. Admittedly, the basis for the entire surcharge proceedings for
fixing joint and several liability against the petitioner and the respondents 2 to
17 is one and the same. It is the same evidence and documents that are now
required to be appreciated by the learned Principal District Judge while
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:02:11 pm )
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
deciding any of the appeals. If the Appellate Court is to decide the appeals
filed against the very same surcharge proceedings individually, there is every
likelihood of rendering conflicting or contradictory findings based upon the
same evidence and documents, against different parties. Such a course is
impermissible under law.
9. It is settled legal position that all the appeals that are filed
against the common proceedings are required to be heard and disposed of
together to avoid conflicting judgments and contradictory views. In case if one
appeal is decided independently leaving the other appeals, the order that
would be passed in that single appeal may also operate as res judicata in sofar
as the other appeals are concerned.
10. Further, the reason assigned by the Appellate Court that this
Court has prescribed a time limit for disposal of C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022
cannot be a ground for refusing to club all the other appeals. Even if there is
any such direction, the Appellate Court ought to have taken steps for disposal
of all the appeals as expeditiously as possible and in case if it is felt necessary,
the Appellate Court ought to have sought for extension of time by addressing
appropriate letter to this Court. But, instead of resorting to any such method,
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:02:11 pm )
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
the Appellate Court refused to club all the other appeals solely on the ground
that this Court has prescribed a time limit for disposal of C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of
2022. The same cannot be sustained. It is also necessary to notice that this
Court, while entertaining this civil revision petition, granted interim stay by
order dated 01.11.2023 and thus, the proceedings in C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022
remain stayed for the past about two years.
11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view
that all the appeals that are filed against the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in
the surcharge proceedings bearing Tha.Va.No.14/2019-2020 are required to
be heard together and disposed of by a common order.
12. Accordingly, the order dated 20.09.2023, passed in I.A.No.1 of
2023 in C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022, on the file of the Court of the Principal
District Judge, Madurai, is set aside and I.A.No.1 of 2023 in C.M.A.(CS) No.6
of 2022 filed by the petitioner is ordered as prayed for. The learned Principal
District Judge, Madurai, is directed to club all the appeals that are filed
against the surcharge order dated 18.02.2021 passed in the surcharge
proceedings bearing Tha.Va.No.14/2019-2020, and dispose of the same by a
common order, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:02:11 pm )
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
possible at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
13. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Principal District Judge,
Madurai.
2.The Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies /
Suo-Moto Surcharge Officer,
Madurai Circle,
Madurai.
3.The Administrative Officer,
A.3101, Madurai Milk Project
Employees Cooperative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.,
Aavin Complex, Sathamangalam,
Madurai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:02:11 pm )
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
krk
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023
and
25.02.2025
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:02:11 pm )
