High Court Karnataka High Court

Gurupadayya, S/O Rachaiah … vs The Asst Registrar Of Coop … on 13 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Gurupadayya, S/O Rachaiah … vs The Asst Registrar Of Coop … on 13 January, 2009
Author: H.G.Ramesh


as Dist: Bigaptzr.

“‘”‘”‘” ‘” “””””””‘”” “W” ‘-V’-‘fi’f_! mxmmxn ms:-3 coum’ or KARNATAKA HIGH” COURT or-‘ KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA H§GH com

W.P.flo.4048Q2,008

IN mm man comm’ or I:AR1¢.A:wm—- f

cmcurr sauna gr auLnA3.»9_9§.i V ”

mmn mus mm mm uni on ‘V J 1}

amkmrw’-. ” % V
mm nonrsm uawaficz Hgaafiamfigi

BETWEEN:

Gflfflpadayya ; =i ”
S/0 Rachairah Matpa = ‘
Occ: Refired _ ‘ “

R/0 Gaadanigenr,

Dist: Bijapin’. H ” *

._ % ..PE’I’ITIONEE-‘2
(By Sri. Ameetv..Kumar’–Dé1-zhpande, Adv.)

‘i’}:z:V-.43″ Assisfafit. ihzgistrar of

Co#ope;”attve:’

Bijapur”Bivisi0ig
‘ Bijapm”~.586_§*491~:

W :T “2V.””!’]:1¢j: ‘ g Director
Credit
“(‘,o-%;)p»::1*_ativc Bank Ltd.,

‘Honnutagi,
. . RESPUNDENTS

‘ ‘~ {By Sri N.S.Deshpande, I-ICGP for R 1

Sn’ Sanjay Mdoshi, Adv. for R2)

— ………. .1…” uuum Ur KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH cciunr or KARNATAKA men c:”c”>’i’:’J

W.P.No 404863008

amendment of Sedion 70(2) of the Act by

(e) was inserted. It reads:

“?0(.2)(e) — A daim byg; (x?-cgj§erfi21f¥2e’fiI2{:i”é:£’y..&
for any defia’eg_r__,qz_¢ in ‘fiu_e”::zs_§§_§_s
operative Socie!y___l_3y V
deceased member or gjfficérj’
or deceased “a;’agi;)”«.sen2ant, past
servant or deoeaéed’ committee,

past or prfesent admitted or

not. ‘ H

A to Section
69 of the Ad. intoforoe on 20-
10-1975, in the case was raised in
thtf V the Learned Counsel

raised under Sedion 70 of

flfgevact In support of this submission,

relied on the Judgment of this

V . ” Govlnda -ws- Xarnataka
j… In the said deczsitzrt, Swamy.J,
;;g:a*4Li§;;ziTafier the amendment of section 70 and 59 by

No.1 9/ I 976, a matterfalling under Seciion 69 of the

Ac! coufd be the subject matter of a _

Section 270 of the Ad. ‘

4. In my opinion, the

the above decision would ..app 1y ‘£9’ the” ‘ L’

present case. Accor dix}Ag1y,&..VI”‘ii%}§;i ‘tt;at of an
enquiry against the 64 of the
Act would not: _V::1**<;spondcnt no.2 –

Bank to 70 of the Act. I
find summons to
= «’u:¥1der the ext:raoI’dinary

juris-,a%:¢tioi: ::>i”t:1’*:is ‘€.’,cV:§’iirt under Articles 226 & 227 of

i;1icS:C(i::stit.;1t:ioI1 dif”Ii1dia.

% = Vf’exi:iijO1iV’f:.iismissed. sd/..

JUDGE

” ‘i”>:<b 3