High Court Karnataka High Court

Jagannath S/O Vittal Shetty vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative … on 29 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Jagannath S/O Vittal Shetty vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative … on 29 August, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA . '  i
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD   f    

iZ)A'I'ED 'THIS THE 29TH DAY (3;-'Au'G:jéT ;' %:2-iioii   

BEFORE   ' T

THE HONBLE MR.JU§1'fi¢E>RAi?IVMA1JMATH'" 

WRIT PE"TI'FIONvN9.3747'*§F"«2C¢O8 £CS4'R.ES5
BE'l'WEEN':   k   @%

JagannatI1,S/_.0«Vitta1E§hetty;  %  %
Age: 36  _. _     
00001'-M1011'    '1 
Main Road, Ofii_Cf3, 'f «.  
Kumata,"I}'ist;V Kar n'1ada;"""' '

 M     % ' ....PETI'1'IONER

  ADVOCATE.)

 M..I?-?,=.  

 1.:  ofCo--operative Some' ties,

 " Ai'bit1'aatia'n,Ca~se Court Karnataka State

' ~. Co~oj5eifa.:iv;é'Urban Bank Federation Ltd.,
'i~1ub1iV.R?e;§on, No.1--Dol1ars Colony,

 Rdacl, Hub1i--580 O80.

 Assfiiant Registrar of
 v Co}-operative Societies,
 Sirsi, ijistz Uttara Kannada.

 Manager, The Urban Co-op.Bank Ltd.,
Siddapur, Dist: Uttara Kannada.

WE:



4. K.P.G1mapal,
Age: Major,
Padmamba Automobiles,
Sidclapur, Dist: Uttara Kannada.

5. Arunkumar Devaraj Gouda,
Age: Major, Hosur,
Taiuka Sidclapur,
Dist: Uttara Kannada.

6. Manjuxwatlm M.Hegde,
Age: Major,   j _  _ 
Resident of Shamczriane, '--   2 V '
'I'a1ukaSiddapur, " _ V' A
Dist: Uttara4§§2an11a;1a."'~.:: A  1  

       

 {BY SMT.'i4f;.\.HDYAVATIv, ..f3".P. FOR R. 1-2.
. SRILUMESH A;;~«ADV_OCATE FOR 12.3.
sR1.DAYANA1sms.'I2.mL, ADVOCATE FOR R6.
' .._RESPONDEIf~IT.S"4 AND 5-SERVED.)

 i-:1:-It-fir-Ir

V      is mad under Articles 226 and
 227. 'V Vof. ft.t_1€3a:--



ORDER

At the request of the learned counsels, the

is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner seeks fer””9.”vsr1′;§t7.Lof ‘V

quash the Certificate dated

second respondent unclet’ s’Co~– ‘V

operative ‘societies Act.~.__

3. Aggrieved by’ by the first

respofidcflt, -has preferred an Appeal

before Tribunal in Appeal

_ The: for the petitioner submits that

delay application has been ordmed. Since

filing the appeal, no interim order has

by the Tribunal and hexme this petition.
l’ to 4′.” When once the matter has been ceased by the

in appeal, its jurisdiction involved is to order

T “notice on the application for condonation of delay and

only thereafter to hear the petitioner so far as =

order is concemed. By-passing the ”

and preferring this writ petit:i0}z1″”and’_ V’

interim order is whoiky not T13? .

should eke out his remedy
The petition beirigdevoid Iricrits ‘i’SV’aocm’d” ingty
rejected. — VA ‘ ‘ — ‘
:uage