IN THE HKEH C.£3UR"§' OF KARN ATAEQX AT BANGALQRE W}-".?'~§0' 10Si:3U2.€_'20S
mm» mm THE 14" an op smrmmnmx, zogssk';
1
SN 'FHE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
BEFQRE
ms HON'BLE MR. Jusracs N.K.PATH__. M
BETWEEN:
'E
SR: EHARATE-1tWARE+~§f3US£NG CDR'PQRAT%QN V
a.No.s-24-31, MANGALAGARI RQAD, ' '
GUNTUR 522 CE£11,{A,P) 1_ _
REPRESENTEO 3*: W8 PQé£V§R 0? ATTGWEY " - ._
HOLQER SRENAGARAJ SAS--T%-Ti,;AGECjPaaO%.J_'T» .
39 YEARS, 3:0 AHOBALA 8AS!'P;¥', F¢.*.'A'¥* £§.iQ.10€3_ ** » ., " .
BHUVANESNARE NAGAR3 sea C\'\',.R£'vMA£$£ N:=;<.sAR~.._'; ..
W3 PGLESETTY .€;£'N3g%fi;Si,£N§3ARA§\fi.«1
(PERM; 3 V . _
GUNTUR, ' H»
§2EPRESE£~£'2'EQ E.-BY Us PQwE§=:.':QF fife.-'oRv:~4EY
HQLDER. saw: AGAFEAJ S:*=~S'FRY;¢AQ.E£I aaaur
39 YEAR'$;"G.'.Qf ;é:=mB:2j;;:..;-*-».. SASTRY: m";°+~:o.ws
BHUV:xNES3NA%?%NA§£aR, 3:8 c:..Vv.RAmN NAG-EAR
PETSTBNERS
{By sag ;. BHARA"rF:;~;g:wcATE'._ "
ms; Namaamw €3HAMEEZR$ ; -
_:A
2}'; A
Mffi SHvREES'ifi';§_';A CQ~QPERAT3VE
' V§N'DUsT§Z£fizL>'ES?Ai§~TE LTD
._HF\\_{ENG ' §TSv.!?E€3!STERED QFFKIE AR,
ammsae, :<;.':s~:e§U§(E' £225? KAIRN-A"§'AKA. A"? BANG.-XLGRE xv_p.2»m_1as:s1;2s-as
wnrr PETITION 159. 10861 or ;
EN THE I-{KER €"IOUE.T OF KARNATAKA. 21.'? BANC:".9:LC3RE 's3\s'.PhNo. iO8»6§.E?;QQ8
' a
4 W8 $HREESH'{§..A BLJELDERS (P) LTD
REPRESENTEQ 8%' {TS DERECTOR,
MESS, AMSHR GOPi
N024 AT, "SHREESHYLA'Z
8?H MILE KANAKAPURA RQAD,
EANGALQRE 62.
Respomnjéwrs.
(By Sréz ANAN? MANDGE, ADVOCATE FDR era:-3
I-fiti
THESWRQT PETFHQN as 1-mam UNERER m4r;cLEs 226 553.3 "22:f'Q§='=, '
THE co:~:a"rm.mc2rs: as gmma PRAYtNG.'?G«._.SET-&;':?A£}E 1'1-aETvr:va:=2a,sV:.=s.NEo_.:
QFEEEER, ET. 30.6.2808 VEQE ANNEXURE A PASSED 8'? THE X} AQQL-._ C§TY
CEVLL JUBGE, 8ANGALC3RE %£\£ Q33'-..NQ.40f2{}Q?'.j' ' T ' '
Ms wan" PETlT£0N QQ?e%§?}£_G Q:4'"F§'->{':»éE:>muNCE'z&AE§iT 0F
030593: ms may THE sou RT ?..R_:;a--:\tQL§Nc§._*:3 *rH_E«:_FQ:% gewame:
representtfi by' Heldar. £2": this
petitinrz, petitiiméra VVIVF:;;fife..v "sc'>{jght for setting aside 'the
:_.in1ppgn_§*3 datA5édv3D§' June 2008 made on R.A.iV on
é:§efi:¢ ¢f _tf§'e§;L=na! City cm: Judge, Eangaiore m
ta award the casts of this petétion
jvy-v+*3§}'d».furth:e& grant such other reiiefs, as this Court may
da§ém'§%t is pass, in the circumstances of the case.
E23? Z%i¢3E~i COURT OF FLARNATAKA AT BANGALORE w.Me.1{:8é1;2%es
EN Tee HIGH C'f.}URT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOR.E er.e.z~e, Ifl8éE1f1ZGQ8
4
respondent through defendant No.1 and 3!! the
seventeen demand drafts have been en-caehed;”__eni}–‘.j”~..
credfled to the Aeceunt ef respondent – defeno’ee{ H
on 9″‘ December 2003 for a sum of ,
eubeequentiy, en instructions end o:1_:”beheEf.’..”.g{.
respondent — defendant N94, ef
defied 3″ January 2004 to 1 fine of
petitioners that, despite sum ef
both defied
2″” January respondent -~
defendant end execute the
eeie deedejn fe”vn;_.::’ of’v~ti’§e_V’pfet’»L§t%ener No.1 – pieintéff Nee.
._vineteac§v-Q reepeeoe’nt”¥ defendant No.1 went ahead,
eneeotee efie!:’.vregéetered a sham safe deed dated 303′
: “””V’Mey QGQS §ei*:%.1;A.§’~Vreependent – defendant No.4 viz. We
o i.”fShfeeehyle’8Aoi!dere Pvt. Ltd. represented by ite Director,
‘An’ieE§a Gopi, who is the daughter ef Reependent -«
VT figefenoant No.2. Therefore, petitioners hereén, in View
tie TEE: Hiee came”? 0? KARNATAKA AT eeeeeeeen \.w.1~e.:..2 eeemene
IN Ti-{E HIGH COURT OF KARNATAELA AT BANGAI..OR.E WMPANO. 1(}8611’2{2{}8
51
at the aforesaid reasons, were constrained te frie eg..___
originai suit in (}.S.No.-40/2007 before the Cpurt bei’e:fw:.f”rj’–.:”‘vv.
and respondent – Defendant Ne_4 was efee errafieidv H
Befendent Next in the suit En terms ef:v’J.Se”et%ee«._1$’
Specific Relief Act since the eaidbrreeperrdent -= aerenjam-e% t
was the subsequent purchaser fut! scngereage or
the two: agreements, bottj_”‘:«.detfie’c§§V.’.A2*§_’ra the jC_?::oLvrrt beiow. it ie the further rzeee of
that, the said prayers (in) and (c) sought
the Court betew wer eneiétatry ape, in any event,
§*:’% EEG}-E rjcrrggt er KAKNATAKA gr emeiieee w.r>.rre.trera:r2ese
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.NQ. 1G86§,»’?.{3Q8
é
suparfiuaus under Section 19 (b) of the Specific Refief
Act.
3. Be that as it may, the Triai Court was p!ea5e§i..___
‘to pass an e>c–parte interim order on 16″” January
restraining the respondents – defendantsii frjg;%{ H
transferring or in any way encumbermg :hesu:: s:c:%’–zt{:?:c}a:V§e; ‘
praperty and restraining the defe{:da§$%$:”fr9m t}haf:§gihgi’3’§ ‘
the naturex 9f the Suit Schec§fiief_V”‘ PrapVé:Tt§i_V. ‘:
respondents – defendant {é t§f_.As§r§t::;:;é:’d% appegance
after service of summcns.VV–afie3VV fi£aAc§.L’ 3 §e£ai’:éd written
statement.a_ ex»-parta interim
order was hzaée at2sVc3€Vi;:t:=§:””‘b::,}”‘£’.!”ze Trim Court vide its
grder d;a §:iet:i ,4″ Being aggrieved by the said
Triai Court making the interim cswder
ab$’.::1tA.Vi’Ea=_eV,’A iAc:ndent — defendant Ne/I fled
4%3-VF.A. and respondents — defand-ants 2 ts
v4’4′;.j&%.rhVoLvJerés initiaily arrayed as respcandents 3 ta 5 in the
V’ “.._f?$’¥.és£A:V£3iEa’f:eous Appeal wer deieted at the request :3?
IN THE E”iii3H CCEURT £3? KARNATAKA AT BAZ’§{}A},€3rRE W.P_N<3. E 8861:' 2{}{}E
{N THE HEGH. ('3€DURT {BF KARNATAKER 21."§"B»AEv5GA.LO?.E 'MRNQ. 3@8t3i:"2{'!{}§$
8
4. it is the further case of petificmers that {ha
respcndent ~ dafendant No.1 had nevar urgad the
paint either in objections statemeent 1 written ssta;«*{am’¢%*$fLj”‘ A
ffied befcare tha Yriai Cam”: or in fine l\’5A§${§4&§§3E:}:;é’t)EfL§$.–V:3′-7igét4.:f,
Appeai befere thés Ceurt. After obtfiénifégg ” th:é7
expeditéen of the suét fmm the’? *.€:§§x<.i$i9:3{ $anah_"v_;n:?f'* §5§'s
Caurt hr': the Miscelianegmg Firs? : 1_j'.{§§'pga$ é:*§fi* 'éfter
éeading the evidence on No.1…
ptaintiff Na? and {ha Triai
Court; ‘the “‘§\£0.1 has flied
frauduient of merétss and
ccmpieteiy v £.:;:ga.:1e ‘ out any materiaé
particuiafg ‘n:.fii%r§g”‘af_ a§1y Eye %aw$ by raspondant Ne} w
flpatitéaners fiieé abjectisns to the said
§ntei*im”‘hagnbéiéétiorg”praying fer rejectian cf the S.-ama
élcgng “€135 évréfien atatement accampanied with the
rmpcandent — dafendant Nam fled a cam
b§<e Eaws czf respnndent No.1 aniy dufing the
HREH {ICEURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG.$:.§;.ORE W.P.No.§{)18£3§£2i'}€}B
EN THE HEGH CQURT {BF KARNATAKA AT BA?:~lGAE.-ORE WRNQA l{)S¢§£f'2€}§};§
19
performance on the ground that in View af Senticn 13
(b) ef the Specific Reéief Act, “Q83 and the innumerajbfi- b_V2v
judgments Said down by the He:;n’b!e Supreme ~
wai! as ihe High Cuurta, prayeys (a)}:a~(c.}’anf;d;V ‘V
maintainabie and no netice undar 8e<:;§ii§r%'«A.A_12v5 hf' :
eperative Societies Aat were req.:,}ii<.ed ti) Vbe'VV%S$Uaeid"§7a'
instituta or mamtain the sigiuifar gsrm by
the Apex Caurt in the ca%;eE_ 'SC
P"¥80'§. Pwétiangéra: Court 3130
on the ground.' 3139 failed ta
appreciate.;V thét;' -»~ piaéntiffa, §':
was conten d’e;d tha5t,’-.ét”L:Vi53ae;~§€’%§é;éfim£ng w%thr3Lrt gdmitting,
Qniy pfggyers (bf)”‘a§j$?d ‘ (ti: attracted the pmvisions af
‘hgnce the saéd prayer may be struck aff
and :’::s;VJ’¢£f: d3′?eb”; é?t§_or::.;;’§t$V1i’.’ prayers {b} and (C) wmfid make rm
défferer:;.’ie..t§AVth’éV suit. Having regard to this backgrmund,
vfp{§?;%tiA¢?1Le–rs fierein feit nacessitated ta present the irzatant
_§;g}’§t petition saeidrag appramate reéiefs, being aggrievaé
W T§’§’§ HEGH {7§f”}URT (Ii? 1~Z§’»..R1’k§A,”?A§{fi. A? }§ANC§:’5k.L£.”}l%.E ‘W.}¥’?’;’»J0. § i}E€éi§;’2%€)8
I353 THE HEGH C€’DUR’F SF KARNATAKA AT BA§§{§A¥.*-QRE WRNO. 1G8€51.;’2f,}€3§
31
by the impugned order dated 30″‘ June 2008, having no___
ether equafiy expadient and efficacious remedy. F:}r’tEf;e:25;’j’«–‘_:T”‘–.v_
the Triai Court faiied ta appmdate that even pragggérs A
and (:3) itseif do not fafi wéthin the scepa”uf–S$t-f§$r§.”§V:’§ .£V2:.f’
the Act and there is no materim an _3;i£§1até;:.vfé§:er’tc$ : ‘–~
awn prim.-3 facéa hold that, resp§fi’$§:wt — .v$e?*fe nd;a§é’:n§VA»§i\.3@,4
E.e. the aubsequent purc:§aa.;§s,er_«” §§._:%e_mbéf’ éf’ the
rmpendent — Defendant Qn the
cantrary, ail the mat§;*i§é’lV a\;ai§a_&:;ié ‘c>fi;*’§:V’r’éfc’c.ra¥Aweu§d grima
facie suggest figféfigdéfit No.4 is us: a
member _D.efagdant No.3 Saciaty.
Further, it ‘:b%4§5ét%tioners that, the Trim
Court haegfs’ failed §G”‘af§§§f&c§:3te that, when the éefendants
.re:’§pa.%§;de_fjt:aa¢3’rnit that the business cf the Society is to
con$ir’L}Ct,’ d’ev%;i:)p;=VtéstabEish and run an industriai eatate
shééa lease out the buiidings and deveiaped
“members er seli them and (E) whan the
p’i:a;’intf’ff i3 neither 3 member of the Saciety; (5!) m
L
EN THE HEGH CGURT (BF KA’R.NATA?;L»5. AT BANGALGREZ ¥%’_P.?a§ :2». 3 386}.-*20{)S
KTHE HIGH COURT OF KARNA.’§AK25\ 535? Bé’~.?>3C3AI..if)RE W.P.Fé0. %€}86§f2€!Q8
.1 2
industriai estate has been deveioped by the Society (iii)___
the property agreed to be sold is net said for ocnstruct§rg37f'<«.b.V:
an éndustriai shed; and (iv) there is nc materiai an–.4 r:ec;uf a'=-'" 3
tr.) even prima facie $9 Show thaitfth-e s:.§=_;1b$:.=,ji(.\',i.s.:.s.~r'a:tv–f'.~
purchaser is a member. Therefore,»A:'%hé';§{1it z§{c;_;A:.§d..rr~c)*t€ '–~
ham been dismissed fer nan éssuaa}*:ce af'*n_¢ticaé= ufgdét
Secticm 125 0f the Co~ope};"a':ivee" é§i.%§§;§§§;._AAct.A 'vv'Ha"§:ing
regard to the facts and case, as
stated abeve, ":€a;*;essitated ta
firasent the " V' A
5. Tifée canvassed by learned
counsel agagjéz-tLrgingv’ft:r: is that, the Empugrsed
pfder i$._iC¢ieeriy V¥0£.é§y& ‘:and in tote! cfisregard ef the
.é~;tat*;.:i:¢;:=3:;p:i:;a§r§s;i.VA§§r;v e£ Grder 7 we 11 of same of Civil
vPra{§e§fl’:r’e.vv.V u£if[j–3_%$I=§pp3rent on the face caf the order
§g1ig;ugné’d..t§1atL£he Trial Court has faiied to apprecéate
.VVTL’}::s.~tifioner$ are neat liable ta issue natice under
‘£25 sf the Karnataka Comaperative Societies
EN THE H16}-I CQURT G?’ }<Z.;'&P;2'§.=<kTAKA AT BA1*2EGALf}RE WRNQ. I %gi:"3&[}8
ZN THE tttett. <::::z.;R:r {DE KAR?\§A'i"AK;A A'? BANGALORE w..m.~m §Q$61.f2{3i)8
13
Act when 331 the regards, plaint and averments ciearty
evidence that, the subject mattpr of the suit does not
touch upon the cpnstitutipn, management 0!’ buginess at
tha Society. The Trial Caurt aiso fafled tp apprecéatp-._.»_V’~..pp’
that, the avetments made in LA. fified under
Rate 11 (5) CPO fired by first resportdent We At
urged either in the otgectéon or in
filed in the Trip! Court 01′ in thé:”‘~!&&ispétta_r:e.c3§;:sVVA”‘téirétS
Appeal before this Court. artvérdévr pf
expedition of the suit from evidence
haa b98fi:V:i€d.’DhAvV$Qh3_tf’Qfi§7gé».pgtififlR8l’ No.1, and issues
are framed tt=VveV’Tr§’4;aV£: at that stage, the first
v4_resppndé;’rttt’~has ti’ipr£__ _____ _jf:’auduient interim appticatipn
A§rt*txctlVA£.ji”t)eArve-,ft~ptrirnertts and cpmpieetety vague, without
settittgt “out ajrtéteriat particuiars or the bye taws of the
. ..V§_”_;.,_fisppndenttNpft — Society. Further, it is submitted that,
Court has failed tn appreciate that, the sum
“«–;%irt_gi’sézubstance at the case ma cut by first respondent
_____#M__”___,,_….—or-1
B? THE HIGH CGURT C}? KARNEYTAKA AT BA1*éG£sLC)RE W.P.}~§::s.£ Gfiftiffifiéiéi
IN THE HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKIA AT BANGALORE W.?.2’~$”o. 1086132098
4.
is that, the relief sought for by petitioners was not oniy to—.._b
enferce the performance of the ccntract but
reiief ‘cf declaration of the saie deed dated
ms and the Rectification deed j;
2065 executed by the first respogdgnt féveur
respondent, the subsequent ;:>urc:f§é…’-‘.4_V1¢’=.r as Vfi’u€3″_u:a;’:v§d ;§{‘§Qid
and hence, prayers (£3) VA upon the
consiitution, business; andi.nziriagvérxfarifofifié. Society.
The Triai Cour: ?§urt§§é_:j acfimmifieg ‘gr}:’ai.’«”‘:.V=’.-.~ ermr in as
much as it hag the Engtant suit
admittedly Viz;-3 one» fdfv¢3p§:t:§fit:-[.§é.»rf’n?mance and in View of
section 19 (b’;%g% Reiiefa Act, 1933, and
vinnggmer;-§.>i e__iAV’ §L;dg:;r§e*nts….«&aéd dawn by the Hcxfbie
S up§éaé§e~ 316%! as the High Ceurt, prayers (a)
(c) a_r_fi maéntainable and na notice under
. :v§5§’c?;ion 125,V:(§?” the Karnataka Co—c>pe:’ative Samieties Act
«.V.V’waé :jeq_u§’r’ed ta be issued is institute er maintain the wit
‘V:.Vf::’%}£,hQ3se prayers.
YN TEE BEGH CCRERT OF KARM”.TA}z.A A’? BA.1’xE{3AL{}}1:’£ %.w>.2~;?g.1 a3zs1_.-r’2£:u:>$
THE Iv{1€1}~H COURT OF §{.§-‘«.RNATAKi13§ A’? E’:ANGA{.(3F’.E W.P.N0. 1(}Si5§f’200$
6. Farmer, warned counsei appearing
pefitéoners submitted that, the Trial Court if
committed a grave errar, resulting in sbehrinus n’1is7e’c§””f:$erfcrmance $3′ the contract
V¥’sV*:’cv:v’£i;$:’?irAéc:t) teucrhas gm acts of
m}anégefi§e.:?1f’3…_3nd-business ef the Socéety, has opinad
” “£.hat, it”««..wa.:§’i-néumbent upon the petitieners to issue
Vridfice under Section 125 of the Karnataka
tCg)§c-Léérfitive Sacieties Act at paragraph 2? page 19 of
«j ‘fi1:9f’V5fhpugned orfier dated 39″‘ June 2008. Accordingiy,
W THE HIGH COURT’ OF KARNATAKEK A’? BA1’»§G.Ai.C}RE ‘\F\F.23’.?&Ee;.i{)8é§f2{“éG8
IN THE HEGR CQURT {Z}? K2′-\RNATAK.A AT BAN'{frALi3RE W,?.1’~§:0° 198133 t:’2(}f.}8
E6
the Trial Court, despite the binding ctecieien ef the Apex
Court: reperted in MR 2094 SC 1801, has whetiy
rejected the pteint ineteed of rejecting the retevent””‘»t.
pertien of the prayer, which the Tria! Court deen_2e’*««’ee.’__j:
teaching the conetttutien, management and bt;ein:fe:ee”*ef
the Society,
?. Further, he vehereentiy”et2hzrnitted’ttaet, t!§evV.i._:TrieI
Ceurt bee faited notice that? preyere{b}”e’nd..(e}.iéteetti do
not feii within the the Ca»
operative Seetetiee. ee:’Aa;se;”ft: freret”e_n ereteubmiesion
during theivicoureeef.:jepiyg:e~;<1d there is no meteriet on
reeord wheteeever'-.Ate.'A' tecie hold that, the
{eepondeet No.4 ",' the subsequent purchaser is e
the :fi:'et respondent –» Society, but, on the
V ceetrethy,'tttekfeefteftet eveiiebie on teeerd weutd prime
'r..__fe<:_ie ettevévtthet, the fourth rwpendent is not e member
4~V.t"'_g:;*SItftttVe'ttt§zjst respondent – Seeiety in as; much es in the
eeie deed dated 30*?' y 2005 as wet! as the
Ttifi HEGH {5C}'UR'? (BF KARNATAKA AT BA'i'~Ei"3ALGRE t'~N.P.1\'1e.}€)E§z3}f'2GCs2
{N TEE HIGH €If.OURT OF K21.RNAT.AKA. AT BANGALORE W.?.N0. 1fl861f2.(}G8
1?
recfificafion deed dated 2″‘ September 2005, both dc:
not disclase that the fourth respcmdent who
subsequent purchaser is a member of if
respcndent ~ Society. The Trig! a:s;’e”fé§iI1¢§”v?§g_% u
apprmiate that, even otherwise the *6.’
reiied upon by first respcandent -gnfy faife 5?’
the first respendent anyyghereAg.V-~~.’:;£}§,«. “c”:r_:_£ tfié’ ‘eontgiary.
further the case cf pet§tio:;a e’::s;;.’ Tri3E Ceurt
cammfitad an err’§,ar~Ai:;:f:V’V:-ncat at’
the Hon’bEe -as High Court,
re£ie;~ci h’sr’e’fdfég: he submitted that,
the arder §r.*«2;:T>:,2ghet#’V} _.:.i’?.2.A¥fjV’V:§§§€.:A:§i§®tainabie and fiance, the
sarne is :3iab1£e :9 be séi aé;-édétat the tnreshezd itseif.
F’L{fthver,._ it isW{t§Aé contentitm af Detétioners that
thué by the petiticners before the Trig}
Court iiiem«.. mt’°considered properly, whereas, the cases
:b.y_ iéérned counse;-5 for respondents have been
_ 9.¢:sn;§*id e%§éd by the Trim Court and proceaded to {eject the
L
EN THE HIGH CQLERT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE V\7.P.}§o.1G®élf2008
{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE W.P.N<}' 19861!-'2(}08
£8
plain': in wheie. To substantiate the said eubmiseéen, he
pieced reliance en severe! judgreenm of this Court end
the Apex Court reperted in 1961 (1) Mys-.L.J.397 — Heerfe.
nete 1, para 1 @ Pg.39?; 1971 Mys.L.J. Pagesfi"'*'r?:.tJ?3._: V'«'
Short Note 392; 1_L_e.1973 vas.xx;r: Myef2*3*.':i;'::'~Ev.:{;;~§_..A T T
1973 Vel.XX1!1 Kar.1098; 1939 (3):;KezA'A.!;,§J:A5E)9;':"'!498Ce..'__V
(supp.)SCC 437; MR 1997 SC'V§?.-2O?V7'vHVead 99999):
A.i.R. 1999 so page 19? Hea9 9r9eeera);%r99.9.1982
3.0. page. 92; MR. 19s99_c,r9e13:99.9. 1971 (1)
sec 9.399; A-I.R 92999 ssfe. 9999999u99rr9ed that, in
View of the 'sreezr Eejvflaid by the Apex Ceurt
in the aforeseid' ;L9g99n:9;%r;r;9 herd and deciared 9:99,
whenevfer jzherrertiee h'9ve get conetitutiena! right 99
Artie'ieAA22? of the Censtitutéon sf indie,
the .C2{:r;.:rt"_gsSjtvV*§}ast pewer under the said provision to
enterfeén arid 'Enterfere in perverse orders, which are
. "V9.r:fenre.eus'"and iflegel, on the face 93' it, resulting in
–..égeri*pL:9 {miscarriage cf juetic%Mln the instant case, the
” ” ” 99 THE 99:39 COURT OF KARNVATAKA .9? BA?>5GALORE w.m~m.:999:s2999
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE W.¥’.Ne. !f}86i;”2§Q8
19
Triei Ceurt hae traveiied beyond the eeepe and ambit of
the statutory previeione end without understanding the
meaning and purpose fer which the iitigentew
redressing their grievances by invoking the it
provisions cf the Act end Ruies. Furj:her’,”thg”..f{rie*-iffieigrt*7′
has overlooked the baeic distinction tietsrileen it
dieeioeing the cause of action retief
for the reason that, the reiiii-;~f’:eeu__:giht eerxetitute
the cause of ection,__bL:t, en c%.weireryv,._’trieyeenetitute
pieading ef feetslir §ri”i’ew ie not the
pieeemeei””reeAti.ie_gAV’:::3:-ef tint in its entirety.
Whether «granted or: the pieeded
facts en}:.£..ti’)e eiwicienee ie toteliy different from
:’e¥i’ef armies. reiiefe cieimed may net be
on the eieedinge and the evidence
adduced. part of the reiief cermet be greeted ‘
4i44i§:3¥.Efi”:€:e__C§\uiiE” “Court is a different matter from saying that,
heeeeee at a combined cieiyzel reiiefe the juriedictien is
EN “VHE HEGH C.C}’UF_T OF KARNATAKA AT BAEQGALORE W’.?.”i’~=1′<:a.i {}86E,~'2€iG3
{N THE HIGH COEERT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE \§'.P.N0. 1986 1.52088 '
C26
eueted or no cause of action is diecioeed. Ceneidering
the retiefs maimed vie»a«-xIis the pteedtnge weutd not
mean cornpertmenteiizetien or segregetien. This eepeetjf-_'
ef the matter has been epecificelty urged and
before the Trial Court piecing reiieneehn
ef the Apex Court in the case of Soea.e::S;}t<hdev;%:.ASe£:Ié
Vs. Assistant Charity Cemmissioktef "end vethers T 3
in Am 2994 so 1301. V:"Eurttte'tV,iti__g~}ee_ smctficassy
pointed out that, when 'téee.'.'–~net taken
any stand in his; :=5tetee*%éént_"at1fl"bejections to the
tfiteftm 3 –:;Vt§jer_e_–"vVV§?éas no mandatery
requirement" fert%iss:1th§A'~etatiutd'ry netice under Section
_125 of Vtijte léereeteke V:(3o;epferetive Societies Act, having
:"'re§ar;ct_:xtc eeegae and nature at reéief seught for in the
_ suit. A\':"\IVhie§'}:'tt:»;et'AV~is"t:phe!d, on the face at the erder, this
ieurt ttéae §et'V§ide pcswer to entertain the instant petttion
' ;',i:i1fe:§Aévrti3a.r¥:icv;V!'e 227 of the Ceestitutien of indie. 2'-"urther,
gugrfimed that, as heid bgfi/'e)Apex Court in the case
'____w___,,,,_._.»»——–7
'§7H;E EZKEH CQHMMERT C}? Kr'1RN§%JFfKKA AT BA2\EGA§_,£"}RE '\V.§'.N<:»t ifiéiilflfifl
:19 THE HEGH CQURT 02? KARNAYAKA AT B.ANG~ALORE w.P;No. sasmzzoog
22
cf State sf West Bengaf reported in 1971 at SOC £3,309
normaily, before a petitian under Article 226
entertained, there should be recourse ts ~
authorities which have power to give rir;-sfiéf;~« V
rute of practice and not 0? jurisdiction. >A:’TH7e{éforé;v_«%éA’High
Court is campetent ta {entertain én~ i§etitiev¥1,’*« £§_ve:i’.= 3
the aggrieved party has ‘:*TéV:*ne’&§es
availabie under the__ *£:§§ ¢§’vAA–‘g§%partm&nta¥
authorities. ‘__,he::’– ‘re?'{_ié.£€§ ” judgment 9?
the Apex Baidya Vs.
Prafuflya H:’re;3a:’tec! in 1997 SC
53.2677 and ‘dréw ‘£0 paragraph 10 3f the
said which frva_a_d$s thus:
power sf superintendence af
_ the Hékgh <:,o"urt under Artiste 227 cf the
Cnnsfitutééfisn is not confined in administrative
AA Vsufierifitendence only but such power inciudez.-3
u its sweep the pawer of judiciai review.
The power and duty W High Court under
~…………._..–»—-»—-‘”””””
EN TEE aiE:3H Cetgm” {>12 EARN ATAKA AT BANGALOR’rZ W.?.}§o.1fi86}f20%8
3% THE HIGH Ci3U’R’§” QF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.1\i0. i{38fi1f2Q€38
22
Article 227 is fieentially to ensure that the
Courts end Tribunals, inferior to High Ceurt,
have done what they were required to
Law is well settled by verieue decision of tfiie Z
Gem: that the High Geurt can iriterfere ~’;;nd.ei*’i
Article 227 ef the Conetitufi’ori’:.&inifizeieee. sf .
erreneeue eeeumptioe or i ‘ eating’ 2 beiyendei V . _
jurisdiction, refusal to exe%ciee _juriediijji:idn,
errer ef lew ep{37e;ent«”l’meri–:’j__ reegxrd {age
dieting uiehed from ea’ ie?ere- . V. law,
erbitrery or ceprieioeeiiiexeieieeifef or
diecretien,’_e./ivpeifieet eifrei erriving
e findingiwhiiéiiie”§3i§fi}eree”‘lerv’V:beeed on ne
mete_:*iei,iV Cr. injuetiee. As
regards fiedirig ‘ef:efectv_.Vef:flr}.e inferior Court, the
High CeergeheV£:ldV’rjc§’£.:fiL:eeh the judgment of
tljeiieueherdirize-teiicegirt rnemly en the ground
ffiriding ef was erroneous but it will
‘ee High Court in exerciee of due
Article 22? to interfere with the
finudingiefviect if the suberdinete Court came is
‘V “t§”‘.’&n cehclueion without any evidence er upon
ii “‘._Vf¥”:£:’rl’iifeSt misreading ef the evidence thereby
1N TEE Hi.<3iri seem: ee Keeeeiiiee 52;? BANGALORE wlpml x eeéiizaee
EN THE HEGH <f$QUR"§' QF KARNATAKZA AT BANGALORE W.P.N0. i{}%$§€3if2€)fi$
23
indulging in improper exercise sf jurisdiction or
if its conclusiens are perverse?
9. Further he submétted that, as heid En is A
same judgment, if the evidences on retiurd ‘iri._re;:–:.pTec’_t cizfil
3 quwtfion of fact is net at an takeha”Erin_A§¢on§§i;i:éra?:’a?fi V
and withmzt referame ta such e7’s;aLi.q:tV§§,=nce; Bf
fact is arrived at by infgefigr C’io ;u;f§::’i.g;f§;”‘vvL’Tribur£éE, éuch
finding must be heidjx: be in factual
basis. in sucfj 0}’ the
jurisdicticn Caurt wilt be
competené to! ‘V$g§.:.§”‘-lvvpgraerse finding csf fact.
Tharefcre, be View 91’ the wen setfied
.§fincip£,e§ bf.§aw iéédV..§.@g:§ by the Apex Court in the case
‘Aloft Baidya (referred above), the Carder
V im;§u’g5’ad Trial Ccsurt cannat be sustained and
_ the} same .59 éftabie in be set aside as perverge, eapriciaus
.$ri6 x& r’r’s::ne:):;s and that petétionera shouid not be
-..e§ ;$m;:§e£€ed to radress their grievance under the statutory
T35 EEKEH COURT Q’? E{ARNAT&}~I.EX AT BA}1i3AL(}FiE \’\?.P’.}~Eo.1§8£i§f2€}fi3
THE HEGR CQURT OF KARNATAKA. AT B£3£~EGAL{3RE W’P.N<). t{J861f2(}€38
2%
prexzieierze ef Sectiee 96 of the Cede ef Civii Preeedure
and atse that, it is not e fit case to direct the litigant te
redress flweir grtevence befere the appetiate Ceurt just
because there is e cenetitetteeei provision to redreeje-«._4'i*~..
their grievance which is inexpensive, speech} e;}"'ei''' :" A
effective remedy.
10. Further, Seemed eoerteei
petitioners feitiy submitted deee..eetj’v_dief§:§te’V’
regarding the feet that, were is iieiiipretiieifee fet ‘etettétety
eppee! as envisaged the Civil
Procedurevi'{3ede;:,’}:y ‘Set:teat;-.if”-ee:titi’€:mei’e have eeeght fer
staying the’-oiperetieriilwlejjnldveeeetitien at the erdet passed
by the Triei Ceu§’t,i..ift d7ee’e”Vnet mean or prohibit the
*ip5e’t:it.ioi:ei*e?~.”t:: “‘in;vekeVVttie extre erdénery juriedictiee es
eevteeigettvv.i;ede!f’jttée eenetitutienet prevteien. Therefere,
there is ee.__ibei5ter this Court te entertetn the instant writ
‘v’v.”pet;t§en_ esthie Cam: has get ide end exeieeive pewere
tge eeteztete and interfere i e etdet peeeed by the
–_”__”””””””‘J’
i ‘ ~ EEGH COEERT Q? }i.AR}-§A’§A}{A A”? EEA’:*§z’3z%Ii.{I?RE W.P.E\ic::».i iftfiflfi-Ettflfi
Hi THE Ezilfxii CQEERT Q17 K£1.R.N?;T,§§KS£ AT ‘8A’£~§GALORE ‘s¥.§’}.’~Es$, l(1S!.€\’1!2f}(}$
25
Court beiaw. Therefcsre, he prayed that, the ordeaf’___
impugned is Eiabie to be set aside with exernpiary aastrg’ Q
‘$1. Further, in reply is the submissian
ieamed counsef appearing fer respeng*3’é*:*fi~.~:s« amt’! t%;e c:3s:.ze*–1’«’ L”
law reported in A.i.R. 19% 5:: 9.2384, :-eJ%seaj:;;~¢;: mg
him, learned caunsei appearing fwgjietitismess ‘submiited
that, the said judgment cit&§i’~~.me{é¥y:_§éé’@駔€ha€:, oirvjder
ef rejecéien sf 3 pgaint 11 is
apps-atabie undegf (if Code:
and it daes ngt€.§.n.V any propasitian
that, beca:;~se seem: 95 9f tha cm
fies, no Writiiesg. – the gudgment reparted
i4_r}V.A.3.R,._i§ Qt”?4 (2) reiied upcm by respendents,
‘A*:ha:1:;’,”~~’:t}_e said judgment is an Seetian H5 of
the v cf’ IC}_§\§§=.%”‘ Pmcadure v’§z»»-a-wviz Appeaé under
._ .SaCf$§0fl’.”Q5; tZ§f.}€i’L:€ CPC and Seatien ‘M5 ef the CPS
f_’_”«V¢fa:ri_’r:é:t’Lbe eicguated to Aréicies 226 and 227 which are
b.f a*’§ic ;features of we Constitution. in rep§y to the
33% ‘”‘.i.’HE Hififi CCT3LE’R’§’ OF KA§{NA’FAKA A}? BAEEGALURE wmzg, sogmzeea
{N THE H212}-H CGURT OF K.5&RI’~§.£5s.T.”aK..45’1 AT BAN(3.£’~.Lfi3E.E W.PC£*§.Q. 208A5}I’?.€}€J$
26
reiianoe piaced by teamed counsel for respendents on____
the judgment reparted in ELR. 1992 s<a;~.35s? ($=;;s:V'%%%%jL
Bench), learned counsel appearing far pet§£i.Gnerr$'L-" H
submitted that as per the said judgrnént,' «{}€}{€iC&"
Sectisn 125 is nacessary oniy if the ac{,<l_é"ga .§ er bifig-v*_; g'A:a<§, 'of
the Society or Gffiser 93' the Socéeffiifir beth'i"a.»}a'téE§
constitution, management ' 'the' véoéiaty
and in the instant__ czaseflfl % %%;.;;mved at
paragraph 38 Tria¥ Caurt
'that, the piaifgfi Es erroneaus.
Further, he5;Vvv’sub§f§Aif%éd:Vt:;§”at,»”‘$§{é….gje:3’ision reported in {LR
2094 %(ar.14«4;E’:___iss ncii’ réégvafié {0 the case an hand and
fhe uhgs bé ‘e’n.VV:~§§{{Hc ;§sgiy cited by the caunsei for
regpgfidenizg.’ ‘ . = ‘= ._
‘V learned ceunseé fer pwtitimers
.. ‘_’*_~«.’_s;ub;:}%tt$2c3~~ the desiséons reporied in I.L_R. 19,73
E/a§{V;§.’;3:>§/E}Is-235 and LLR- 1973 Vo!.23 My3_1098, which
. on the pofint and have not been overruled til!
A
33′? TEE HJFIEH C*’C}UR’? OF KAR?€ATAKA A’? BANGALORE ‘v’3.»’P.No. §{}36i:’2§iII8
{N THE HKEH CQLERT <35 KARN.15tT.AK.A AT 'BANGALQR.B WPNQ. 1686 if2.(1GS
2'7
date, have met been eeneidered by the Triei Ceurt.
Therefore, finaiiy he submitted that, the impugned order
passed by Triei Court is petentiy ermneeue, perverse,
flagrant, vioietive and in tote! disregard er the St3ft}'ft€Ji':y_:'_:'._V_
provisions of Order 7 Ruie 11 CPC and if
impugned erder is passed bese¢i,…VQniy it it
3 ' .
unwarranted assumption and ;3resr;_ini’ptien_”‘
respondent Nr:z.4 is e ee-mem’eer~V.._of firet__ re§f;’p.g3ririer’rt.
The Trial Ceurt was under an erren’ee;;e’Veeeuniptienrrtriet,
fourth respondent is e dn_1’ereber” __ehd_’r..v”e<;cerdingiy
committecfie greiée'irerrjer_ir:~:§:;enz:itrding that, preyere (is)
end (c) to 'met upen the conetitutieri,
v'_rneneg_eitjer§t, beeirieeepfvthe Society. Even eeeurning
ereyere.(b.)':'~ee§" ..(c) tench upon the eenetitutien,
'–._._meneg'e'rrrerrt ef the Scneiety, the Trial Ceurt
. eught te heike etreck off preyere (b) and (:3) es ieid down
iby:i:trre:»i§pex Court in AER. 2004 SC 1801 and thereafter
':cieQ_icied the matter. Heno%eeping in View at! these
{N THE HEGB COURT C}? KARNATAKA AT E.A3\iGALORE W.?~'.N<:s.1€}®61f20G8
{N THE HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA AT B§.NC3ALCiRE W.P.NQ' 1f}SéEi'2Q08
28
factcxrs, the order impugned cannot be wstained and it is
fiabie to be set aside at the th:*es;ho%d_
13. Per contra, {earned counsel appearing_fé}”fiféf[j–: _
rmpzsndent, inter aiia, contended andsui:3éi:é;n%.E:afg§§d.’_’_:VAV
stating that, the carder impugned pais sé%3T”E5y
Court is in accordance wfth thevLj”‘Fa¥avéVrst__ ‘:33§3{3d’a£tiry
previsions 9f the Code Civi5″”‘F:’§¢r§§éjd;;{e “ah’d ‘fiat,
prayers (b) and (3) 3:o;z£::Vh. l§j?vev2.A/”.::V’,x;’§€3n=.atitutien,
management and” .;t§1Jsi:4a%§;{§’.:.V~::of* %5e…:.___:.f’sgespondent.
Therefore, the Cénsidered the
well settlecii by this Caurt, and
after appre¥é’-s#r§V”r’w:;’qL”‘”materiaI available on fiie
and aftefgf’ ‘v<:.a.re1';{x!'-»p§_e§.ir{'js*,a§ Vi' the averments made by
petition and the objecticzns ffied by
re9§§§ah'd.§,§t,s":'= , _uréfisf rightiy aflowed :.A.:v and
¢r:n$eq'{3'erzrt'%§ "ré}ec'£ad the plain: Hawever, Eearned
; Vc§unse§~-appearing fer respondents, at the autset, raised
_af'«.pr e§i§?:'z'iAnary {mention regarding the maintainabifity mf
L
EN THE HEGH CCKERT (BF E~ZARa'\1ATAi<..»% AT E.AN€3ALORE W'P7E~5a. l€}8{*3i;'2G{}8
{N THE HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA AT Bi'-.NGALOR.E W.P.N0= 18813223008
29
the writ petitien before this Ceurt. He submitted that, the
writ petition ie iiebie ta be rejected et the threeheld iteetf,
holding that petitien Se not mainteineble for the reeee_e..:’_:’~.V_
that, petitioners, without exhausting the etetutory_’–~et§eee.Itj’:: ~
remedy, which flee against the order.imp4ugr2ed’v”‘,eeseed’_’_;_
by the Tttei Court, as provided underesieetitvcml it
Code 01’ Civil Procedure, have e§proaehe;t’thte:
Secendty, he submitted that petit’§u;’ijere”;»e._._ kne¥.v¥::g’*”tuE!y
well, have feiied te complytetttt etattjteriytnejorepiience
at Secticm 125 ofti’te_:}(areete{r§e societies
5 n
Act. Pefit§enereAVV’ttes;e_::’e bT’etetu_tary remedy ef eeeetizng
the order §ntpu4_’gnejct” the Triei Ceurt by titing
er} eppetette the ttseif and they cannet by-
A’;3.g-eeV”*»thevremedy and take reeeuree tn the
ereceedtngvfie Artiste 227′ of the Constitution ef
ev eeuree of ectien may enebte e iéttgent te
‘ ;_defeet e%_¥ the pmvieéene ef the etetute which may prmsiee
. ,…§iVVfl;%;grte%n Ceneitione fer fitirfihe eppeai, tike Eimttetéen,
Hiilifi CTCEURT OF K’.AR’;\’2AT:”xKA AT BANGAi..i.’}FiE W?.No.i{t$€:’sif2GG8
EN” “rm; HIGH com? 0? KARNATAKA A’? §3»AN<T§£kL»ORE WP.No.. 103:3 3.529%.
39
payment 91′ court fee gr deposit (‘sf same ammznt or
fulfifiment: of some ether candifions fer entertaining the
appeai. To substantiate the said submission, he piaceq’
heavy reiiance on the judgment of the Apex
reperted in Am. 2003 sc 2736 in the case
Chane’ Ra-tan Vs. Pandit Durga Prasan?’ (Q) ‘V
others and drew my specific attention m__
the said judgment and submitted”t!%§Vé*{, whvier: 3
statutory remedy :3? assaiiing t!7eéW_::g’:::::’i.§;;-:V*VV’ ‘Vpgssedv by? *che
District C¢x1rtviv;V}.A:f§i.§’ra.;c:;:::§2:3’r~s appaai We High count itseif,
pefitioners:VV’ra ‘n’nc$t said mmedy and take
recourse’ is prdCe§;edV§nQsA’uhfd’7é* Arficfles 226 and 22? cf
I-‘i’§he«.Qo’r§éfit;1tiar: pf indiéT’Such a recourse may enable 3
provisions; of the statute which may
“V”pmvidAe-«.._for,. cefiairz conditicrzs far fiiing the appeal, tika
. Vpéyment cf court fee er depcsit of same
2’_a r§nG:.:V:’it”A_or fuifiiiment cof some eiher cenditiens far
~ éfifefitaining the appeaé. in the instant case, patétioners
/=4-w~
3% ma. H}G}i €;}{)U§€’.T OF KARNATAKA xii’ BANGALGRE w.p.z\.x~..ma52x’23a2
THE HI. 1′.}8é §s’.’éfl08
33
are iéable £9 pay huge court fee if crnm they opt ta fiie an
appeai. in carder ta avoid payment ef court fee, they have
chesen in present the instant writ petétiarx. Therefare, the
writ petitim flied by petitioners is fiabia in be rejec:’£e;d…__’
1-4. Further, he pissed fireiiance on the H
the Supreme Court reported in A.f.R.'{‘§§3 ASQ'”P-?38§’*£;:s_: VVA_
the case of Shamsher Siagh V3,: Raj£r§b’a~ f ‘Pr&s£é3::f’..é§;§d ‘
others and submitted that, an rejedéitz-§ _VV:TaV’: piéint
under Grder ?’ Ruie 11 ,_.ééra»:gt:$’§é’?r’§ ent of’ the
additienai murt fee d.emande.¢. ig-af:};:)éaEé’b_!é”Véss'”a decree
and when zéha, ii’: appeai by the High
Court 3 aecenud}..s{ppeé%_§;?ékt§;}ici::_”.§Lié under Section 100 CPS
an__the fchfitg~..4&he…dec%$icn of the first appeliate
Coyrt.:.V£§;1.Ati1.s§’iirzférpfetatien 9? Sectinn “F (Ev) (0) is 3
15. “,MF’U{ih6F, learned ceunse! appearing for
reé’§_:>nd§’:1ts placed heavy reéiarme on the judgment cf
in the case ef Alb%D’souza raparfed in 197-4
THE H.183 CTQJMRT ii}? E§ARNfiL’?.AKA AT EA}’«€GA1,0RE W.P.N0. E G8éi§3€é{}$
13»: “ma {~££G§-1 exam? £’;3£<' ?{ARNA"£"A§iA AT E3AE'»39"}s3xLi§)Rj3 W.P'E\Eea zcggazrzaag
3:2
(2) K.L.J. page. 5'! wherein it $3 heid that, regéctéen czf 3—.._b
piaint on the greund that the Civii Court
jurisdiction ameunts ta a decree and is '%
under Sectien 96 91' CPC. Accordingiiiggflyigaég.;.s';:§®: T.
judgment reparted in Am. 1%4%%sna§
jurisdiction fiEaut%,% – decisian itseéf is net
: a’;:>§g3aEef:i:L1_j7:::%e’ ‘A.;}fV}i3 AA’E4é%g!’*%–~’ Smsrt directiy er indirecfly,
e>’;_*c;Vi«s~§é”‘ef*’s!f:e..”‘rg-vigianaé jurisdictéan by the Court wouéd
L’*u….»not Ea’ ‘éxcéud-ed.” Tharefera, it was heéd by
. ….’_j: ;’\pexACour’iv.V_i:}:at, if an appeai fies to 3 subardénaste Ceurt
anrci’V’€h’a.c§ecésian of such sabordinate Court is appewabfie
L
TEE BREE €’fi”}UR:”E’ 0% §{..AR1’x}AT.¢~.KA AT gaxesawgg ‘aa;*.§>n:~:c;A:::rs»:;1,r;m3
IN THE Hie;-H {,’€;’l.?R.”{ :31? KAR.NA”EA’§. 1G8fiE.!2¢31€)S
33
to the High Caurt, the Hfigh Cam: has no pewer to
exercise its revi$i0na§ jurisdictéon.
‘E6. Further, he has taken me thraugh
reasoning regarded by thee Tria! Caurt regardin_;§””t’h§::.’./J:
application flied for staying the operatiqr: and.~’ze*xéé:j;:’§iés’§a
$1′ the impugned arder, wherein §83:ff’£€§’d’..C{}!:;§!’}8fi§!:” fd:’3–..A.”:’T1.T_’
_piaintiffs — petitioners herein h3s”_?V_x_vi’:'”*a”3$a¥f’i”:-3:5 ‘aehéfréégrtiéy
argued that, the “ma! Cnurt ha$V..p;§’ssed.L_the;’ 5:*dar~.:–.t~}nn
Lmv on 36″‘ June 2003 and g;;aw*§nsg:n e 5,_A.:v fiied
under Order 7′ Fi;u§é;; -_-11 ggrfisequantiy,
rejecting {he _ §D{£i i?’!?;-~.._;%’£3&I’E” r’~…__a:”n£)UfitS ta a decree.
Therefore, it %;a. 3n vaf;.*;;3éa§A!a*–§):it-3 éecree. Hence, it was
gqbmiitecfihat, durV’ing *cvv!ff:_§ fiendency :31′ the suit, the order
c>f._Enj;jVnc:ti:3n_wasbggerative against the respendents and
vtherefnrheg pe’E§fi§§r#’& rs – piairxtiffs were deséraus af
_ ~.._’;;}*:a§’!eng§”ngvifijév xarder éated 30*” June 2008. Hence, if
izhezf’ .Vi%1jt;:nction order was net cantinued, great and
%:§£épa飒abEe Sass wautd be/égused ta the ;3¥ai:’2€§ffs
e~———~«–7
i1*=:; Hififi :t:’r*a«:1′..i.§e;<$E by
petitioners as not main{a%V:f§;a2§i'e.vfir?' of
avaiiabiiity ef.appga§i:f$me{§§'.V';":1: V "
17. So fa} raisad by ieamed
counset far pe_%.%tixc¥¥..:s;rs_V’raga;§§in_g« {non cempiiance of the
statutory ;3rtN%s:._icz.nv”o’f 41′ of the Karnataka C0-
_:,3peratisIe§.§ ‘Seciatiés-»..Act is concerned, learned ceunsei
?ap1pé §arir_3g =..A:V r:~:5p0nden%:s placed refiiance on the
gudgsnént am fsssun repcarted in am. 2994 Kar.”1445
_ Arégyéséfar Cowaperative Hausing Saciefy Limited
Qdyébfher Vs. Fakiragouda and Anofber) wherein it Es
1V7′—.t 1§ld_V_’%that, the grovision of/Sectian 125 of the Ca-
….-»~—-~»—*-7
Hf§CfI”§ £Z.’.Qi,§i{{T (BF RARNATAKA AT EANG.e%§..,C}R.§?i ‘e’e’.i3′.’P<§o.iQ8£§}!2fiSé§
173% EH5 Hifiiri CSURE" OF KARNATAKA KT BANGALQRE W(P.N0q 208t§E…?2€!Q8
35
oparative Sacéeties Act are attracted since the reéief
sought for by the Qlaintifis aaainst the Sméetv reéate-3″€kiaf”~«.:T”‘«__
the busimasses of the Ssciety and any gersun s.«:=:e}c§r}__{,;:1:” H
reiéef against the socieg which toucfis the £:«L:s.i:’§ e’-.i~:.”;-; sf A
the saacietg, such Qerson being 3 mefibgdr r20 ‘membe’r–;_'”~.,
is of nu reievance.
18. Further, piacingi~.;fg!iar:é’e ‘{i:;§3 f§:§ Ffiié “fiéénch
decisian as this Ceurt reperkedksngagg_&L4§9@Kar.P.3537
{Kréshi Matty Kshe-ef?:V1UtpédatSe’駔: vwgmaggna Sarhakari
Sang}? Niyatrzfifl v.:AV’1efé;’riied ceunsei far
respendersigs !-éotiae under Sectécn 125
u
ES mandatérg ‘where AS’: »–ir§”-fisiestian with rgferenge ta
$océg_’§5iM._§§irV Gfficaf’ Ac.>V:9_:__};::>t!fi and re¥a____3:_§s to c:enstit_;._:t§.9n,
;;51_ana§.eVmafit.sribgggjnesg :3? the Sc_gg§etv.”
non maintainability of the wr%°t
p%t§t§on,’ ‘ .. Vi’§aafr§ed counsel far respondentd piaced
Nthe judgment in the case caf Surya {Dev Raf
Ear?) Chander R31′ and Qthers repoded in (2063) 6
EN HEKEH €7€}’sJRT £3? }i.z*’aR.3’5fA’§’AK.A 15%.’? BANGALQRE \§v’.?,No.iG86i£20§3
IN THE HIGH CQURT ‘CF?’ i<ZAR.NATAK.A AT BANGALORE '«MEiE\3c:, 10§§61.f2i}f}8
36
SUPREME COURT CASES 675 and submitted thatfl’
“At the end, we may ssum up by saying that the awe;
there but the exercise is discretienarv which ”
Qovemed soieiv by the dictatea of étsiciic-53! t;ons;§&as§rsc:V:ev–.i’.V
enriched by iudiciai experéersce and p¥’a¢i§_<{ai wigiam
the ;'udge."
32$. Having hearé ~fg;r ;§&éfVi{io?§’ers
and warned ccunsgt for :f§{s*v.:;”‘.~iz_>_:*”;L%r71£é;*f::;ts–*”%i:$fA*’.I§:%§%*:s5cierable
iength sf time 2008
and 20″‘ Vévaiuation of the
reievant iv?;3at§=9:iAa:i’ –“.av_f駒i!ab«!§’-…._;:,nI file and the révai
submission mafia vb)?’ i_éaVrr:a:d..»L.¢0unsei appearing far the
partEes,@:é 3tated”‘3«:.1pVzfa,’.the {allowing points arise fer
con$i;ie§aiiz: n«:.% v ” V
4; Mfetsruem the writ petition fified by
pet:’tiQf§*ar*s is maintainabie under Article 227 of
~ t}:é~_C013stitution mndia ?
/«,_…w.
IN TEE HEGH, CTOURT Q? EARN ATAKMA fa’? SANGALCERE ‘a}&7.E’.E’*$c:.1{}8<%1,«'2{)(}3
:1»: THE awn €'3{;)UR."i' <32: KARNATAKA AT Bz'~';;%J{}AL£f)RnE wmszo. was LSEILKES
37
ii] WHETHER the sfafutary aotice
mdar Section 125 sf the Kamafafica C0»
aperartive Saaietias Act is mandafary ? and __ ”
zzg wH5″rHEa petitianershare’jufsfffféifi,
in invoking Arficie 2:27 by fixing ,{haji’ir§:3f_§ar;t:” k
writ petitian when they/bgve }:=__ ‘statzzfdsy
mmedy sf assaiiing the éfdggf by £;;:5g%:;:e% é[
appeal to the High cam ifséff :5; % %
Since the subject mam»;m9;Vea[%;amn:s {:1 and
{N} are identical sake of
oonvenéengié;”t%’1e§}vf.aré:§:§ut§’b§d afi d”ér§swerad taget-her.
Reg. Paint N»::s’;€ 51
Afgerv zgarefui p_£eimsaE of the order impugned, it is
Sactmn 2(2) cf tha Cévi} Procedure
Ceda fhat,”;;s7″_’vfv..dé;:%rke> ” means the fu:’ma% expression af
fin 8dj&\%;§{i§.(‘;5;’::~l:’§.§(‘.ii¥’*§.V’ which, so far aa regards the Court
~.: “é$§pré3is§;jg §’t, csnciusiveiy determines. the rights of ‘(he
.—-«———-‘-7
Hwith rwaré to 533%; any cf the matters in
EN THE Hiifi-‘.i CCEURT Ci? 3~i.AR1’\2ATA}éLA AT BANGALGRE ‘3aTP.iNe.1 188%}? 2088
IN THE HIQH COURT C3? §<LARN&'fAK.A, AT 8AN<I}AL€3§,{.E W'?.NQ. 1086112068
38
contrczversy in fine suit and may be aithgr preéiminary cg’
final. Et shafi be deemed to include the
pfaént and the determination Gf any ques’£é;c::iv:”_:—s{;fi’2§j§§i
Section 144: but shah not énclude W (Q j::a;”d_i;i:d;A§c~#’§£i£:srj..LL:_ V
{mm whéah an appeaé lies as; an appeai mm an €3s:*C§*::j=*.;_V_VjGr
(b) any order 9? dismissal fer defae§uE t:n
21. After carefu! pe$~f§i3a£ ;_>%:!§.e7*~– ‘impugned
passed by the Trial Ciaurt, i:.’%$v:fr§gn§fgg:t_:§§’.f$:ca of the
said order that,’..’m’1-e;rrm’if{:f 939?} or materiai
irrwufiaréty Va;:___ efizmrfiifieé by the Trial
Ceurt near the ‘¥–‘r£a§ h’é§$.:§%a?e5Sed tmyond the scope
and ambit caf tfS’e.4pra\}:§$i§SVh3 statute nar there is any
vpVe{yersi_fi3§’«:. f%ag%é35:3tv…..y;§a§ation ar disregard af tm
sfiazuiéfy~;>r0.xaf§$E§:)ré :t:€.Qrder 7 Rule 21 (d) and Secticm
.125 of Cowcperative Scvcéetées Act. when
..j_”_;«:g2ei§&.§,oner3 “have statutcry remedy ef ass:-ailing the order
:~ V ¥m§i}§ne§’..’passed by the Tria¥ Cami”: by féléng the appeal
Court étseif, petéfianers canmt by- pas:->3 the
m<:§% 1*L’;:iie,*~.::i=;,s;§4’ViT:;::!*:”‘ u
itseif prescribes the remedy cr procéduée ~*§ar'”‘ari’f{$feii1gé_L’*~-. “1T’
éhe right at §Ea_w§iiity, resort must’&_3 ef’~whad {:3 .thatVAlfi;arEi%:;’u%a;
statutory remaciy before u 3ee!<%::§"_:*–€he:_ dié7c;'at§s§xarv
remedy under Articie 226 eftiie __Fur'the%*, it
is hair} that this:..C;':a§;'f't éziA_Ae)§?:é'psi%aAf§' é.§_'~.cv$_$éé, can ésaue
writ of certiéfiéérfji-""2;}¥%i9é':*e '*;§j9§f'e–.. V§s £.§c:z2fr2;3§ate %ack sf
jurésdictfiorfler 4fi1é3'uthc:ri'£y or the Tribunafi
in take acti'c::=1 var'-theré'~…'-being 3 contraventéan Q?
:'.ights5V"'a=:':s£–«'Viz?:a-re has been a vimatien en'
¥'L1§¢t~'5' 5G'5. £1':-:;§u%'.a£.T_}u.;atice and the campaign? autharitéeafi
aquaéi' .._'jjT:§.:c§ic;=.5a'i: }.a'{}thor%ties, Tribunaés acted under the
– i,”v”p_fi::\{Ais§0n”{}f_ E’-aw, which ultra véreg, then} mt wifiwstanding
“€§} e–..Vexés%ence of an aiternative mmady this Gasurt gar:
‘::’_§2~;’ez–‘§ise its jurisdiction in grant reéief. in the present
L
i§3’~2 THE HEGH CCEURT SF KARNAWKKR AT BANGAEJGRE ‘€3e’.E’.:\Ea.§{}$£Six’;1C¢€!E§
TIRE THE Ei1{3HCC3UR.”I’Q£3 K.ARNLAT.5%}~IA 3%.’? §’,~A!?€C}A.LC3RE \.»¥.P.Nt:m 1€23€Si5′?.13€)8
£0
ceee on hand, $3: Ee eégnificent te nete that, pei§tioeerje*–,T
have feed the eppiéeefiee seeking siey ef the
end executien of the impugned order eeeeed _b;:.{heVv 3 [
Court, wherein ieemeci couneei :_-fer? ‘{>etEf§t§’e:1e?ee.___ AA
vehementiy erguee befere the T’rie_V! Ceerf and
rmerded by the Tee? Ceurt
passed in O.S_Ne.40!2G{1V7″‘ei1 ‘Z:{_3V eddétéenet
my sea Judgeg: .__Bee§e§*e}fe the eeid
§.A.EV under éeoeedure Cede
end re}ec§;%i”zg’fie’:eie:ie§”«eef’eeete,’teeeafidecree and ii is en
eppee%ab%§e~_deere§ QMieeeeéféeeiihy eueméeed by ceunee%
fer pEein€v§ffe *e”:e§ «ee~réeg’ tee pendent}: ef the suit, en
erder efi:in§;enc€*.iAen eeeegiereténg egaénet the defendente
:eep5eedeenfe«._’.er%*n:’£.eéaerefere, pieéntifie «~ petétienere are
2 deeéreue of ‘ef駒e§§Veng§eg the erder passed by the Tee;
z “~–«”:§’£’sie eeequivoeei cetegerécei vehement
_’eeee1iee§Aen made by £eerned ceeneei fer meéntiffe befere
T ‘Triei Cam’: eieariy ewdicetee end émpiiee and proves
EN THE HKEH EECEURT GP K.A}?’£NATA}iA ;%.T P1A?%§{i.+’&L?C}}3.E ‘W.’£?’.Ne. } €§Ré%1.=”2$f}S
3:: THE HIGH <:oL'B:r <3? KAR.NATAKA AT BANGALQRE W.P.N0k msmxaczes
£1
beyand 3H maaonabke daubts that, pmintiffa – pet§tic}nar$.___
are wefl aware cf this fact and this fact is; neat diaputgdf
feamed counsei for petiticners during the co1;:rff§:.ajV*_Ta§' '%
submissien. Further, the submissidfié "<3? me J
counsei fer petitinners that, _.they inv;<j:k%.a "€¥'1e"'; ' '
extraordinary jurisdiction undef'V"L'L»::§§ft§c§e
C-anst§tu'£ion of india oswgjjfifxe thVe H grder
%mpugnad is féagranfit, :s;§av§;afrix¢%'_e:–..a:r.'§ev:V:§!A "txt2 1_.; :;.'§b':–.c:?§§§mgard 3%
statutary prev¥s.§_Va3a§é§A':.1:f(;;:'f;.§i far the
reasan shag bywpass the
statutury ré%=;fr1e_gj the relevant prmzisions
ef the Statut;ei'~–g:4nd,v £6 _é§EL§;:§e:_':3éyment ef oaurt fee has
fazfigen r§::§;§{;{saVvtn ;A'fi§a:£,e,___2i2? of the Ccansfitution :31' India.
§fi.__£§1e"'§ngia_;i1E as rightiy painted out by warned
}.___caunse£"fbr vr5e§,':sj_:faVr.*icv"§ents, petifionsers just its by»-pass the
_ _ _ :._'_3§abi_'§§ty for~~§§é3*n§ent :3? caurt fee, have chaser: to present
*._'_' '&:e?f"_in$;$'nt writ petition by raising untenable and
ungggfiainabie graunds. Knowing fuifiy we", petitianera
E23 3§§§§?iié§%$EEfif§R? OF :s:ARNA?Am AT BANGA§_C}RE wmxo. 2035152392
EN THE Hlfifiié-E CQURT Q? K.ARE\iATAK§: AT BANGALQRE WRNO. 2{}?§{*}}..f'2(}j}§
thrcugh their' c:eunse£ before the Triai Cmm, have put
writing that, they want to assail the mrrectness
order impugned by way on' filing the appeal H
High Caurt. Such being the ease, nevi,"é:{:€i:is'§uré¢tL§_%é§V'_
is not justsfiabfie en the par': of p¢fitiofi:a;9é–..ta inj.Qr.*;&.%’f.v7:V%VA1»:s; Fi’;i7§§§’:VV–“;,’3:5urt ¥n ‘the
case af Seth _.:F’.fa:%f§t:}fi:”S:;rga Prased
reported in Am. ‘1i..é:.f2:G.? ‘ sékmsme }3E)£}RT P_2?’38_
Paragraph :13 9%’ t%iéV”reads thus:
“13.}_VEveV:%1.;;ti§ve7ra§-ise, the View taken by
%he_i€ QivisionV” of the High Ccsurt for
‘refmiiizég we sbjectiors of the appefiant
‘%:e.§g.iarci§:°2.g;j” maintaénabéfiéty ref the writ
an atternative remedy daes not
div’ésstVf%§e§vHigh Ceurt of Em powers ts entertain
J “pa?ifio£i under misses 226 and 22? 93′ the
” “A.C’:mstitution, hag hardly any appiicatinn an the
facts cf the present case. it has been sawed
/2»
EN ‘E*§«:£_ Hififi {Tf.}E_’;’-R.’§’ (:21: K..AR?€~E$,’?§_K;% AT BANGALGRE xw:~ea. :aga;:2é5é
IN THE meg éfCJUR’F oar KARNATAKA AT eaecmeeee w.e.:~e. 1i)$<31:'?;(}i}$
43
by a long cetena af decision ‘that v
or iiebitm is created tax: a ete_Lgte, which 213$}:
Qreecribee the gemeqv gr erogedurg fer
enferging the right or Iiebmtv reeert muetV_§§_g~..V.
had te that Qertictfiar statutegg rerhefijg. béaferejl’. V
seeking the déeeretionerv refiaegéf ‘”{_._:ede§f’ _
$11226 ef the Cen,e”t%tutic’ré.’«–.._V. Thie. Vhmie
exhaueticm cf etetutery remec§§ee?%’ie_ne Eieebive ” ‘
ruie of peiicy, cenvenijenee ehh’d”;*§iee;ifetion arid
the Ceurt in be excef3téehe§w:’1″‘e’ee:e1§§. ees;.;e a
diecreticahery wr§t.__ef gertmg:§.% A\£%.¥he?’e is
eompteée _3eek €he:’€Ia%ficer or
eutherity 2’ {eke ectien :31″
there heee-“.§:;ee:y’«.__§….___ eeeireventien ef
fundenieetai “:*§gh?.e~ :_er:__’:”th’ere hae been a
viuietien céf t_fu§ee’– efv.ne5[urel }i.£8′{iC8 er where
thfe”‘:~tr§b:uh_a¥ af:tec£——–e’nder a provéeéon ef law,
‘ ;.whEc’ra.__ieh e{{fe.._viree, then netwithstending the
~.efi.§e{e’fi5e.__04f,”e.h eitemetive remedy, the High
C”eurt.._t:eefexerciee its jurisdéction fie grant the
AA re§ie’f.-…h’ En the present case, the eiternetive
V.i%e.§AfA)edy ef cheiienging the judgment ef the
Vgceurt was nef befnre some other ferum er
H Tribunal Gr: the can ery, by virtue ef eub
_,,._….—-7
“TEE HKEH CCEURT OF KARNAT§tK;k AT EANGALEERE W.P.?%30. 1{}862§2€3{)$
§f?~Z. “ME 1+£§(TeH CGURT Q1? KARNATAKA AT BANGAUDRE W.P.E\3Q. XOSGEKEQQQ
44
section (3) of Section 2′? 9f the Act the srder
passed by the Court amounted to 3 decree
againgt which an appeal iay tn the High Caurt.
When the party had statutorv remetgh! sf”
assaiéing fine order passed by the Distfiusfit ‘
Court by fifing an agpeaé to the AA>VHigh ‘
étseif, he amid not bypass *1:he1 _sa>ifl :%emédy’ :
and take racsurse ta Qrc;ceé4d§r§§3~$ und.:er ‘ ” Vv 1.
Ar£s.226 and 22? of the cunsfimon. A
caursse 93′ actian may ena.b§é”Va-“~»..i_itigé:’ai-in
giefea’: the grevisions123$)”£he’«.$t?gt§J{é.~:.§a.«§§ic:h rnav
pmvide for ceftain :;:;}r:”;i’§tiot}s,:.L fc$r fi?§:i};;” the
ggpeai fike !irr§%taiien;=. payr:éefi€Tcf”mu§'{ fee 0:”
dewgit czf ;érn»;§u.b:f:af::…;;-:f– fufiféflment 9% same
ether ¢0§sd¥ti9n$–efi’Era§{E3’§n§ng ma anpaeai.”
_. _ (em7;f;ha;si3, suf§p3Vi”e5d)
:~§f”_*:%1Ae”vr§a;’1:%§’V§:i§f’fine wait sewed princzipies ef iaw mid
i’.§__’§ the_ Caurt in tha afaresaid case $3 taken
« canaicégfation, the game is déracfiy appficabfie is the
~ «. . V faéié iand”.–‘cErcumstances 91′ cage an hand.
T ~ HEGR IZEOURT can §{;~*xRNA.TAKA. ACE” ma; sfiz’-‘:.L«{i}’R;E ~s.w.:«m. 2 amxzaaa
1353 THE Hiifli ifj'{_’%{JR”£” {H7 K_ARI’§A.”§.$.§iL,A AT Bfi.NG.ALi3RE ‘\V.P3’~f<3, W853} 3.:'"3€}€1$
45
22. Further, in another judgment af the A.pex.___
Court in the case of S3-démna Ladh Vs.
insmrance Ca_Lfd_ and anathar repartad in ‘% H
Supreme Com!’ Cases 524, ft is héki
statute provides a right ta ffiielagn fipgviefii c::§ §§nj’Et5ed:u.r–~ V’
grounds, the said gmunds at'”£:§é2!:engé~ _z:.¥iéi§¥*:§£§
eniarged by fixing a writ;::4’batit’i_$§i.:A:§fi®f’–«ArticE§sVAV22£
and 227 of tha canststutsc.srs%gt%m%ia’;’%L%%«%7§u%:he:,
heid where 3 fiié 329$’ 3f.:’:’b’7eaE has been
ibrevided “fmj ft isfifi~.sf.;;;vpé:$_”?{§é”vL«’H§k3’§§VV_ Czourt ta entertain a .
Qafiitécsn uri=der_ Congfitutien af india
gver; if whg:é*L43″refii§;§y;.t’sg:’_”s;va§{ of an aggeat has net
gaen fivtfigi rouid#d’*~§:f___ag. sins: the erder and Eudgmant
€>”f a V”i’}§stri<ff£«. giiidcgg. Further, it is aim heid that, $53
'V "{;£–§f'i_s£5é1é¢tian gganferfgg an th___§ Hiah Caurtg
_ g§j_d_er of tha Cersstitution 35 eamfined oniv ta
wbéiher an Enferéar Cczurt QB" Tribunai has Qmceeded
' -§r§é§€h§nL% its grammars 3:15 not :3 carreat an arms' aggarent
/L
{N 'IRE Hfifm Cf*;}UR'f' ImRE W.§3′.1\§o.Ei}8é1;’2[}§§§
THE MESH C<21?;}R,T OF KARNATAKA AT B,s%;\K.EAL€}R.E W'.?3§Ze:. 1935 §.f2G&%§_
1%
gm the face cf the recerd much !-ass :33' an error af iaw. Sr?
exercising the supervssary pewer under Article 227 –
Canstituiinn, the High Ceurt dues not act as an a;3;5§ei§?;:t}et}"'
Court or 3 tribune!' it is 3530 not Qerziiiés'&'b%3 Ea; Hég _
Caurt on a gatition flied under A. V'
Constitutéan ta reviaw or rewei Q'h..VV:'§he: evidjefiavhé
which the inferior Caurt Sam
nassed the order gr to in the
decisicn. Furthé-_'ér;'A'§f%iriV§$ of Aibert D*
Souza, ( referr§§ referred that,
" But, by has been settfiad fly fihe
Supreme Ce'u%1_'_'ir:_SVf3J4'§?fh5:§§}& V. 5.; Diiion (3). The
.Sa;preme.§.A:.CGL:rt h;ai's;.ja_fte:{ considering the defiaians;
:9€;':fg§:$é;}:f?e~dVVbgfA_v't%2£;..%:'iyy Cauncif councii, Afifahabad H§gh
<Z;ouft'*a::5:t$'t¥V1§§=.é Q':-gjéééhan High Court, found as faéiawsi
~. an appeal fies against the
"asié-udicfsatian dérecfév to the Hégh Court ctr ta
7_3;h'0fher Ceurt fmm the deciséen sf which gig
___.;a§p;*;eai fiea ta the High Coart' it has no powar
/L
i:r~f""i""§?§§':?z§<:*a}-: caam 5;? KARMTAEEA A":"'BA:~e§3:2f};£§v1h7ait§&’v’:LAtfilaurt and the
daciséon m’ such szg’bz2§fdinai<e':;€_i£;§;;%i..§.=x._%%$;::§§:Eé'§§ée ta the
High Ccmrt, nix?! exercise» étg
_§mr§sdictien._ …. …2~'_5A'{$~ _iv".i'g:i5":é'i'..§.*_s.IV.péikfijéd' i€s–:..r:.. Searneé <.:cz:.mse£
far ;'espan éa;n*?es.§, fight of appeal to the
High court may $®£i0'fi~.§9:6~.–ut§f the cm: Pracedure Sada
:_v§s~a§ia§£v3;ji§3~ie, i.:a the ;Ajé's'§i'§a:;-*:1ile:'s. Being well aware of the
séifie'; V T_;:ae€§'£*E«::;fié:r:2:g.: have iravoked the axtra ordinary
' L"~…f 3:1-dia» Therefere, having regard in the
sircumstances of the case and the iaw being
R*=Ii TEE E-iififi c:<:a.?m' 5;}? KARE'-EA.'§'A§<;ZA Afr 3A£§;%Ej2i§§fiA§.?I%fé%§§é;1""é§&§;§"E:§¥:;§i%
:5: "EHE HMS-§ <:%z.:w.:§2.*:° <:w§~" KAR.E\i ATA.m; 9;; %§skE\1€I$~AL€3R§€ '«.rx,:'m:<:;. 1936152038
4
Said dawn by the Apex Ceurt, in hosts af judgmenta,
referred above, this Cam: cannot exercise its jurésdictian
under Artioée 227 sf Eha Qenstitutéan :31′ Sndéag more
when petificieners haw: got remedy under Sectir3n._”:Q6v’_{)]§. :”
{he Cévfi Precedure Cede tc the
Fuxther, in Surya Dev R3955 case (as éefé;~*r§§ sQ;=..ta},. zit’ ”
is heid by the Apex C-aurt thafiihe H:g%h%%C::g%: ‘&knk
exercise of certinraré G?’ szipe.5rvist5fy”}L::*§$t”}§.:;ticn ivJi}i””nnt
cunvert itgeif Emit: a com”: en’ ‘agglpi-‘.$_a1$!f»ar:d ‘¥f1fdu’iTge in re-
appreaoiaticzn or ev§!iJ’:}gt&i$e3’d.:. hvrfiuies af disscipiine an Mair pawer,
.St:par¥1Lis={3ry gurisdictixan may be refused to be exercised
EN” THE E-HGE-E C{3{,§R”§” C}? }’§MARE*3.»%TA.KA A’? fifi-.’x§(}_>5t.LC}RE 33*a’.E~*_Ne3. E %8s:i};’2€){!§§
IN THE HEGH COURT *0? KARNATAKA A7? BANQEALORE W.P.N:}. 1(}86E./20{}€%
49
when an alternative efficecieue remedy by way ef appeal
er revieian is avaiiabie ‘:0 the parser; aggréeved.
23. Therefore, 3 am cf the ceneidered
when petitioners have got eiterrzative remedy %
appee! against the erder impugned
Ceurt, 3 do not find any juetifiable -groue*dv_ee eu:::?r 3
eut by petitieners to entertain the””«ir::ei:ent T_ feetériien.
Taking into ceneideretienv erii”theee2.:_>re¥’es;erfitfanfare and
having regard tn the_ faete”veridV”§e§e§ ee§§ebre ef the
matter, E de in the erder
émpugnedrpeeeedyfie} ‘ Ceurt and the writ
petitien flied :by._Vepet§iVi’enie:e iéebie to be dismissed as
:_.net_meéfiiseéeebte. Renee; interference by this Court fie
urreeéied’ fen. * ”
F3__£e’.po%r1t5 : Learned counsei eppeering fer
*~–[7.j’jv»-peiitienere févehementiy submitted reiying an the
decxSeEe.ne.–‘ ef the Fur: eench reported in z.s_.R. 1992
“V’}fier.._t?§.3587 and the $eemed eingée Judge reported §n
EN THE HIGH C7E3{ER.’%” E}? }<".ARNrATAI¥L-r'\ AT EANGB.L€}RE WAPNQ. ifigéiéfififlfi
"EN T§"{'§3.M_};§§§L_3Ei Cf}UR."{ GE KARNATAKA AT I?3..:%l'~§GAi.<i}RE W.P.NCa Efifiéiflflflg
Si}
!_LR. 2034 Kar. P1445 (airaady referred above) that
since the tenabiiéty of the suit depends an the issuing of 3
notice under Sectien 125 sf the Act, the need arisese«j*:a:'f"–«b.V"'«__
ascertain the cémumstances in which 3 notice
mandatory and has ta be: insisted upgzrriaza.a7.ne;;§s-sary~..i'.V
preiude. Whatever be the act, be it iilégfifi'; if
reiates tn the canstitution, rnanageffzsent 0:" .¥§U£i.i"':&S$'f: di'
the Snciaty, 3 notice undezf becomes ii fvcarem
runner in the absence of fths;"~~.{'3'u1iiv..v;veuid be
deemed. The _$éid';;1i:§'z§Vbr:ii–$s€3g}fi of thékezarned counsm
for petitiongevrsv¢a'n.§%;.;:;t_Eé the raasan that, fit
is crystat ciéanf 'as heig in the case sf The
zéregyagwgagar C:.¢VC}-":3*,£3I*r_:_§§!'V'1&fI'\..'4V"s'-3 vi-iazzsirzg Seciety Lid. and
:AF,:§:f§ira geuda and Anofher (atready referred
ab®g)"–.,thét,: V".pro§%'ié§an of Sectian 125 of the Act are
éafifacteufi sivncéfthe reéief scuqht far by the néaintiffs
Smcéetv reéates to the businesses of the
___fs§ciéiv. Ami persen seeking a reiéef ageing': the sacietv
?
1}»? TEE iwifiiffifi {?{,}UfiT iii? KAR§”3:§TA§<IA AT BA3:\£{"iA1.QRE "'=§v'.E'.?\§<3.1(}8é§;-"2{){3i§
EN '§H"§ 5'rE1<3H €L'§'j3URT Q? i«i.%§RNAT,5xIi"A AT BAN£3:4\L€7JRE WM'PNe. 1686 i.f2.£1Q§}
5}
which tcsuchgs the business of tha sac.-iety, such perscm
being a member 0?' na member is of no re!&va.2':.c:_'e.'__' -f:
(emphasis suppiéed)
24. Themfare, 1 do not rm Zéngi- rif}fe:t;i4I. hi<.E;1—-':{?'s&:~.. _:
a:::entention's urged by Eearned ceungel fix §etit§c»hé'{s__gn
the gmund that not w§ths:anding_:v:f'h¥a{_'Vfagt, "§;§*§':V§?e1:BtefAivv?$he
piaint§ffs- petitianers am ff:#;?;1be}$ 2.1.9,; "r2®:b'¥aembers ef
the Society, if €hey_ ar__e gaéfigfilg the
arder which teggfieg ..Vbp:s;Vréfia-£s'§<.f;_'ééanstitutmn gr
managemQr;'t'*cf.'V§fi%2' under Section
125 9f the 37 to note that the
Trial Comft af;:5e':i=¢;arefuI§yv_"-gokag thmugh the judgments
fiiiad u-pdnyby petit%oé1é'?é and after anaiyzing each one
a? opined at paragraphs 3.5, 36 3?
‘ “’emd 38 –*fe:;t_§aé:,__> ~ ampiy dear that wéthout éssuing the
.. j;g’;;:,*;§f3;?’¥t’£?..0!’){ ..r:e*:”i;ics2 under Seciéan 125 of the Karnataka Ca-
o ‘;;;1ér=a{§ve’:”A Sacéeties Act and absence sf pieadings
T #é§ar’déng servéce of natice under Section 1-25 is fatafi ta
“EN THE HIGH C€I3URT a::”1%;: AREQATAKA gr? EA’;=€G:iE.{‘§’r:E u.=.::.:«\n. } em-*§’E;T}§’é
EN THE HKEEE QICDKEBQOF §£ARNA’§AKA AT BANGALCERE \?{,P.?.’~Ee. EQ8t’i1f2.{)€}S
52
the ceee of pieintiffe-eetitienere. Therefore! the Triei
Ceurt came to the eeneiueien that the eieietiffe
petitieeere have fiied €he suit, which teaches the ‘eetefi
the Ceeeperetive Seeiety with reference te its S8f2S’€Ef!7l.§’:’i§:’;,?=§f§’uem. Ae
er bueineee ef the Society. Aeeerdéegiy, the ‘%
eiiewed the E.A.Ne_%V fified by reepeeebeetej~,
end eeneequeeey! rejected the Veiefmt by f&§ei’§f;s’f.§ff€_;S~ 3
pefitienere. The reeeonéng giveeL4L’e.:;:’t%3e fer
eilowing the eppéicetéen ene.V:”reje§et§se§. “te[ee.j3%eint filed by
p%einfiffe — pefétieeere, ie after’ ‘eeifefuQjeeeeéeieéreeéen of the
§edgmen’se ~re!§–ee’ end further e!ee has;
referred specefieeliy ee-v__ the acts ef pleénfiffe tench
:_~’£Jp«i:)§”l Gféhstitut%eVfi’ve–e–d’ eueirzeee of the Society in as
eieeh evfjieéetéfie have eeught for the resief e€
V’~=”.dee£erefeen’zegeseing the eeie deed and the reefrfieetien
‘ ” ‘idem exeeeéfed by the defendants 1 end 2 in fewer ef the
‘fe.Q%:?§–eefendent end eiee the execetien of the ee£e deed
nee-»vn~ei£ ene void and e%E the%V§cte definétew teach the
w-……………-.–……………,
EN THE HIGH COURT OF E-CARNA’£’fi.KA A”? BANQALORE W.P.Ne.1G3e1!’C£fi€}$
1..-Emit {:éf”‘casa$ cited by petitéanersu But
EN ‘REE HEGH COURT 0?’ EQARNATAKAM A3″ EANGAIADRE ‘v’w’.P.?~3{>. 1€)3(§1f2QQ,8
53
constituticn, management and busineas 9f the Sociéty_…__
Therefare, issuance ef acting under Sectican 125
Ca-aperafive Sucéeties As’: was a mug: before .§;feét§:tL:%§:_’egT
the suit. En my view, the Trig! Ca;§%§AbVh§’s
ta the said concéuaéan and uphe}d_’the 3s.–a.§fisa~ afieé-“‘..a;§§ft§éa!’:’;
anaiization of ‘the reiavant prav%§it2VV:;§”v’QfVVthei5’ ‘ a:nd. ;thV§
judgments cited by 333rnec3;::{gWg:§§’l”§§§%fiaftéesgfl
25. with regaréi ta §fhe cited by
teamed s:o:.2ns§%4.f€:tE:f§ i am es’?
the: cQnsid;e;r$,d ‘ia’.$§i}’V«:i:§§_é%, “E!-3 :vV’:’}p’:’d§spa;te or secand
opinion the wet! settied
proposition a:f”‘iL;§;jgv fine Apex Caurt and thia
ijnf ert{3hat&i3{;’ *-{asks and circumstances af these
*»_,_caseé’ , é:’ev .”;é’éfat.é:%eiy défiereni: to the facts and
c_§rcumsta:”*a::§s cf the case an hand and that, the same
c3:r*{na£,_.§§.e made appiicabée to the case of patitianers.
:”§”7%;=e_..T%direct rafiance placed b learned ceunaei fer
THE Eiiiiifi «’:T{}’i_§F;T C)? KARNATAKA RT Bz’aE*»3GA.1..€I)’RE W.I3*.}~E::s.1i}$¢:i1:’2{}8$
mi THE HREH €j'<3UR'1" Q? K;A'R';. mg::m2s1<:+s
:34
petitioners and the Submission made by him have lzeeenl
apprnpriatew and exhaustivaiy cenaidered ea refarred
preceding paragraphs both by this Caurt as ' A
Tria} Cami. Further, there is rm dE$;r3u$e.reg%§§;c§_§V'z§}g{'V:v
wide power that this Court has got ur.§;:i§§.–A.A_VArt§cie_..:22? aof
the Censtétution cf £nd§a. VT'h:¢§""pa%n.tv' h–e_fe'V.iS.=, S
whether this is a fit case *f§g' ;§§ii $"C®rt
and in my view, the same4'jV:£2F§:§g .AAa,'»;IEj*;§.¥;'acts and
sémumstances 52' having
ragard to the of the case,
interfergncé " '1'i»j'%.v=;;§fcre, gm reliance
placed by prepcsfiion (sf iaw laid
dawn .é:a-'1d:; this Gear? is of rm hem ta
himv in r:és::-Le ahhand.
fegard tn the faczts and circumstances
~C.j’j;:€___then gsaséaflcaking Ema cmnsideratien the factual and
‘._’_’ ‘iag::i£’_3s;;i?ej;’:ts of {he matter, as stated supra, E dn not find
merit gr 9906 grounds as such made nut by
“‘_””””‘”m’_”””””I’
13% 3-11:33:; C’-ma*:’?3§’K,-*s;m-:a;i’A§<_A AT BA§'3Gz%E,€3RE '+.X'.P.Ne;':. 1 €}8:i1fE(}£}8