High Court Karnataka High Court

S R Narayana Murthy vs Joint Registrar Of Co Operative … on 27 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
S R Narayana Murthy vs Joint Registrar Of Co Operative … on 27 February, 2009
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar


–n – –m ~–vv-u vr Muuw-HAISA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COB’

1410.108! 13, 2″ Floor, V _
Apeatfiankfluflding, ”

3 1th min. Srinagar,
Bmcmnom – 550 050. _

3) H. JAYABEV,
Hmfble ca-oparmve Hemhugg

Prauiéinaflficw of{C;jH.61_,

(DELE’IED\?’i&a_Orva&&V’V”: :: _
Damdflo-€}9~2¥93VG8):’–A

(Byari. fin-R1
Aamcuermm 1

mmwnrrmtmoiI”zVs”iria:.E’j:s%–zi1a?nzn ARTICLE 226A!iD 227 or
coHs111trnmi~.. o1=r_11:Im;s mama TD QIIASH onnnn m
“ao.s57j»3oea mm) 17-09-2093 1=-Amm BY

<2-"F on AK? 01332 wxrr nncmme

'1fiA"i'-»'1'EE grmu. mm M mm rmtmormn seams': mm

'cen13;mtIzV%1n~.*s":aza;sr msmnnm mssm 8/8. '70 or 'me
acts' a nmmma mama 'to ma
TD nmnsn one man mm 55?; macs

on Immrsmuccoxnmcawrm LAW

% mIs'*1=$1:?iioH come on ma Emma mm my, mm
mrmrmnn ma munwmc :

Writ Petition by a member of awomi rmpondmt «-
House: Building Co-Operative Soc-iaty Ltd., who is

u..- -sonar – \u\rIJI\’ wt nr-uu1.HIHI\l-I I”II\:H’| BUUKF U!’ KRKNRIAKR VHGH COURT OF

6. It was mm’ 1-. this erder of 3 ‘ ‘
Appcllatc Tribunal.

time though mmpaigd ;m._. 13.
neverthekaas dismiasefiglga of the view
that the Rm.5;u=§r% the
dispute: as ac. in the appeal
before the the appeal also
mvmg Tribu.na1.( Copy produced
at Petition to get aver am-.

V. A’ ….. 14 g

imelf was heani . Katina had hem

the mponaems. First mpondm:- Reggae-ax
% linpfiéflia represamted by s:-Lchauaraarmlcaraian.

8. iwith the eonsmt of the counsel for parties petition
‘a taken, up fiat disposal. I have heard

//
@/./

.. ….. . .._.- -……V__- ….. -.1… .n.n.-..– –..u- ~..~..aun- vi nnnnunu-an.»-I l”H\.7l’I guuxr ur IU=\Kl\£AH-\fiR HIDH LOOK’ OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUS

_ reapgqtoie

the Karnataka Appefiate Tribunal Act..1?7§; ‘ ‘

* us. contact onmanm a£’t§e.

(1) mm pawara ufthe mming to
appeals, revisions ‘4 subject
to the provisions 9faub5pe§té9ri $_V (£2) Be mrciml
by a Beach cf twfa at man be 9.

District Judga, %

(2, A W a! may. .1,
any er made in this balmfl by the
Chairman. pofifm c-fthe Tribunal in

1 ” ” ad:n1u?s’ir.i£1vaafan appeal or raviaion, petition;

‘(ii ‘V V
(ifi ._[-adzzmieaiseti-_..of an appeal or revision petition

the expriry oftbe pa-ind albwed by

.my%omm pmdm dispersal of an appeal,

‘ x Treviaian, reference er oflaer proceedings;

.« xzzmttm of an ixlmrlncuuzry chnraaclaa in

*–..*’:ppaak, 1-minions, ra£er% or otlwar

, {*9-V). ~ such other mama: and subject to much conditiom

as may be praacrihed.

(3) ‘me bench hearixgany maths: relafing to..-

(a,] the Department. of Co-operation. shall

carmiut of,-

(iJ a Efntrict Judge; and

-uurov up-Vurniixl ‘all I\l’|l\lIl”\ll’|I’\l1 r’II\’I1

was no mfiarabh dispute within ii? *
ofthe Act an Lagamy ofa bye law wmggh

place after going through jpf
by General Body and not a
suhiect matter for 70 and
was no order in the

— – u-u-u-up c

eye of not tenable under
aection we ‘Tribunal in fully juatified
in dim”, .

fiyim the argument that nplnal uzxdur

the Appeflatza Tribunal can he
% by a Division Bench of Tribunal
of Sri. Chaxadxashekaraiah, burned mutual
is that the ainghe membm: of the Tribunal

‘ been ezmhlad to pass orders at the tune’ of
» adfiaion far the purpose ofadmming and yanflm

immimordua-ifadnzitbadandatthntutnge ifthnlanrxmd

<5/}

– –n – -vi-In! vI”‘ nnnlifllflhfl TIFUH COURT OF

single member of the Tribunal ‘ j 2
of :11 the other proceeditga qf ‘

can be heaxd and disposed a
and in the case of a kiispi;-tznerzt
of co-operation by a Judge
mad. an orda-

dmmsaifla the around that
thus oumwiaa, should
a division bmch of the
by a single Imbal-

xaf of .;1mm of an appm under
of the Act, 9. single mm cf the tribunal
admit in appeal and she pass an nrder nf
_ fithe lmrnad metnber so is oftha the appeal
admissicm. On the other hand the 1m-ma

mnmbarisoftheviaaw thattheappeal lac-hmm-itandis
tohadism’msed,i’cnw.m1atbedonabyhin1¢e¥fbutcan