{"id":107022,"date":"2005-12-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005"},"modified":"2017-08-25T14:15:57","modified_gmt":"2017-08-25T08:45:57","slug":"m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 06\/12\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM         \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN        \n\nWrit Petition No.19840 OF 2003 \n\nM. Adaikann                            ..Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Registrar of Co.operative\n   Societies,\n   N.V.N. Maaligai,\n   No.170 E.V.R. Periyar Road\n   Kilpauk, Chennai 600 10.\n\n2. The Joint Registrar of Co.operative\n   Societies, Ramakrishna Road,\n   Salem 7.\n\n3. The Registrar\n   Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal\n   City Civil Court Buildings\n   Chennai.                             .. Respondents\n\n                Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India\npraying  for  the  issuance  of  a  writ  of Certiorarified mandamus as stated\ntherein.\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.  L.  Chandrakumar\n\nFor respondents 1:  Mr.  E.  Sampathkumar \nand 2.          Government Advocate\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>(ORDER of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)      <\/p>\n<p>                Aggrieved by  the  order  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal  dated  22.05.2003  made  in  O.A.No.807 of 2002, in and by which the<br \/>\npunishment of dismissal from service has  been  confirmed,  the  petitioner  &#8211;<br \/>\nSpecial  Officer,  has  filed  the  above  writ petition to quash the same and<br \/>\ndirect respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate him  with  all  service  and  monetary<br \/>\nbenefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:<br \/>\n                According  to  the petitioner, he was appointed as a temporary<br \/>\nJunior Inspector of Co.operative Societies on 05.02.1985.    His  service  was<br \/>\nregularised  with  effect  from 16.10.1989 and subsequently he was promoted as<br \/>\nSenior Inspector of Co.operative Societies and while working as  such,  during<br \/>\n1995,  he  was  directed  to  hold  additional charge of about 15 Societies as<br \/>\nSpecial Officer, which covered around 50-60 Kms., area.  Based on the repeated<br \/>\nrepresentation of the employees of the Societies, which are under his control,<br \/>\na settlement has been arrived at by him under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes  Act,  1947,  and  with  the  approval  of  the   then   Co.operative<br \/>\nSub-Registrar, who is a competent and higher authority, revision of pay scales<br \/>\nof the  employees  of  the  Societies came to be extended.  While so, alleging<br \/>\nviolations, he was issued with a charge memo dated  31.03.1998  under  Rule  1<br \/>\n7(b)  of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (in short<br \/>\n&#8220;the Rules&#8221;) and the petitioner was asked to submit his  explanation  for  the<br \/>\nsame.   Thereafter,  an  Enquiry  Officer  was  appointed  and  at the time of<br \/>\nenquiry, on 13.07.2002, the petitioner submitted his written explanation.  The<br \/>\npetitioner was also served with a copy of the enquiry report  and  he  made  a<br \/>\nfurther representation,  disputing  all  the  allegations.    By  order  dated<br \/>\n31.01.2002, the second respondent &#8211; Joint Registrar of Co.operative Societies,<br \/>\nSalem-7, imposed a capital punishment of dismissal from service.  Aggrieved by<br \/>\nthe same, the petitioner filed  O.A.No.807  of  2002  before  the  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal.    The  Tribunal,  by the order impugned in this writ<br \/>\npetition, dismissed his original application,  confirming  the  punishment  of<br \/>\ndismissal passed  by  the  2nd  respondent \/ Joint Registrar of Co.  operative<br \/>\nSoceities, Salem.  Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed the  present<br \/>\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Heard Mr.    L.    Chandrakumar,  learned  counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner and Mr.    E.    Sampathkumar,  learned  Government  Advocate   for<br \/>\nrespondents 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   The  learned  counsel  appearing for the petitioner after<br \/>\ntaking us through the relevant materials, including the impugned order of  the<br \/>\nTribunal, has raised the following contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)The  respondents  have  no  jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Rule<br \/>\n17(b) of the Rules, as per G.O.Ms.No.111 Personnel and Administrative  Reforms<br \/>\n(Fundamental Rules II) Department, dated 02.05.1994;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)The  petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to put forth his case<br \/>\nbefore the Original Authority as well as the Tribunal;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)Inasmuch as the second respondent \/ Joint Registrar  of  Co.    operative<br \/>\nSocieties,  higher officer than the appointing authority \/ Deputy Registrar of<br \/>\nCo.operative Societies had imposed the punishment, the petitioner has lost  an<br \/>\nopportunity of canvassing the order before the said appellate authority; and<\/p>\n<p>(iv)Inasmuch  as  in  respect  of  similarly  placed  persons,  the  very same<br \/>\nDepartment has imposed minor punishment and in some cases  charges  have  been<br \/>\ndropped, the respondents are not justified in imposing the capital punishment,<br \/>\nviz., dismissing the petitioner from service.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   On  the  other  hand,  the learned Government Advocate by<br \/>\ndrawing our attention to the details furnished in the counter  affidavit,  met<br \/>\nall  the  contentions  raised  by  the  learned counsel for the petitioner and<br \/>\nprayed for dismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  We have perused the relevant materials and considered  the<br \/>\nrival contentions of both parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   With regard to the first contention, as per G.O.Ms.No.111<br \/>\nPersonnel and Administrative Reforms (Fundamental Rules II) Department,  dated<br \/>\n02.05.1994,  the  deputationist will be deemed to be a member of the State and<br \/>\nSubordinate Service to which he would have belonged but for the deputation for<br \/>\nthe purpose of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services ( Discipline  and  Appeal)  Rules<br \/>\nand  the  Government Servants Conduct Rules, notwithstanding that his services<br \/>\nare placed at the disposal of the foreign employer.  If  the  Officer,  before<br \/>\nhis  deputation  to  the foreign employer, committed any act or omission which<br \/>\nrenders him to liable to any penalty specified in the said  Rules,  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment or the appropriate disciplinary authority under whom he was serving<br \/>\nat  the time of commission of such act or omission shall alone be competent to<br \/>\ninstitute disciplinary proceedings against him and to impose on him a  penalty<br \/>\nspecified in the said Rules.  As per the said provisions, the State Government<br \/>\nor  the  appropriate  disciplinary  authority  has not been barred from taking<br \/>\ndisciplinary action against deputationist.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   The  above  said  Government  Order  makes  it  clear  that   the<br \/>\ndeputationist is deemed to be a member of the State and subordinate service to<br \/>\nwhich  he belongs notwithstanding that his services are placed at the disposal<br \/>\nof foreign employer.  In our case, the Disciplinary  Authority,  viz.,  Deputy<br \/>\nRegistrar,  Omalur,  who  was  his  immediate  superior officer at the time of<br \/>\ncommitment of certain lapses and also the Appointing authority in  respect  of<br \/>\nthe  petitioner,  has  taken  the  disciplinary action under Rule 17(b) of the<br \/>\nRules.  As per Rule 8 of the Rules, the second  respondent  is  the  competent<br \/>\ndisciplinary   authority  with  delegation  of  power,  to  impose  the  major<br \/>\npunishment.  The second respondent is an authority higher than the rank of the<br \/>\nDeputy Registrar of Co.operative Societies, who has initiated the disciplinary<br \/>\ncase against the petitioner.  On a perusal of  all  these  materials  and  the<br \/>\nRules,  we are satisfied that the second respondent is the competent authority<br \/>\nto dismiss the petitioner and the  action  of  the  second  respondent  is  in<br \/>\nconformity  with  the  provisions  contained  in  G.O.Ms.No.1 11 Personnel and<br \/>\nAdministrative  Reforms  Department  dated  02.05.1994;   hence,   the   first<br \/>\ncontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   Regarding  the second contention relating to violation of<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice, the details furnished in the counter  affidavit<br \/>\nshow that the charge memo was served on the petitioner on 19.11.199 8.  In the<br \/>\ncharge  memo  itself it was specifically mentioned that 15 days time was given<br \/>\nfor submission of his explanation and if the explanation was not received,  it<br \/>\nwill  be  presumed that he has no explanation to offer and further action will<br \/>\nbe taken on merits of the case.  The Deputy Registrar, Omalur, in his  letters<br \/>\ndated  18.12.1998  and 08.01.1999, has instructed the petitioner to submit his<br \/>\nexplanation.  On 15.02.1999, he gave a final  chance  to  the  petitioner  for<br \/>\nsubmission of  his  explanation.  The fact remains, the petitioner had neither<br \/>\nsubmitted his explanation, nor sought for perusal of records in respect of the<br \/>\ncharges leveled against him.  In these circumstances,  the  Deputy  Registrar,<br \/>\nOmalur  requested  the  second  respondent  \/  Joint Registrar of Co.operative<br \/>\nSocieties, Salem to appoint a Domestic Enquiry  Officer  with  regard  to  the<br \/>\ndisciplinary action taken against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   The  particulars  further  show that the Domestic Enquiry Officer<br \/>\nissued summons to the petitioner  for  appearance  and  requested  him  to  be<br \/>\npresent for  domestic  enquiry  on  29.11.1999.    The  petitioner appeared on<br \/>\n29.11.1999 and sought for  adjournment  for  perusal  of  the  records.    The<br \/>\npetitioner perused the records relating to the allegations, in the presence of<br \/>\nthe  Domestic  Enquiry  Officer  in  the  Office  of  the  Deputy Registrar of<br \/>\nCooperative Societies, Omalur.  Finally, the petitioner appeared on 13.07.2000<br \/>\nand submitted his written explanation before the Enquiry  Officer.    He  also<br \/>\ndeposed before  him  that  he  had  no  witness  to be examined.  The Domestic<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report to  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent on  01.11.2001.    The  second respondent communicated the Domestic<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer&#8217;s report to the petitioner on 05.011.2001,  requiring  him  to<br \/>\nsubmit  further representation if any, which was received by the petitioner on<br \/>\n07.11.2001.  The  petitioner  has  submitted  his  further  representation  on<br \/>\n05.12.2001.  The second respondent examined the enquiry report, considered the<br \/>\nexplanation submitted and passed the final order, based on the findings of the<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer.    In  such  circumstances,  it  cannot  be  claimed that the<br \/>\npetitioner was not given adequate opportunity in the enquiry proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  Coming to the  claim  that  he  was  not  given  adequate<br \/>\nopportunity  before  the  Tribunal,  the  perusal of the impugned order of the<br \/>\nTribunal shows that after filing of reply affidavit  by  the  Department,  the<br \/>\npetitioner also  filed  an  additional affidavit on 12.02.2003.  The Tribunal,<br \/>\nafter  considering  all  the  materials,  passed  an  order  on  22.05.2  003,<br \/>\ndismissing his  application.    The  grievance  of  the petitioner is that the<br \/>\nTribunal reserved the Original Application for orders and the order came to be<br \/>\npassed after a period of one month, and in the meanwhile, the Department filed<br \/>\na reply statement.  All these facts cannot be considered by this Court at this<br \/>\njuncture.  If the petitioner really had such grievance, on seeing  the  order,<br \/>\nhe  could  have approached the Tribunal by filing a petition for review of the<br \/>\nsaid order.  Hence, the  said  contention  is  also  liable  to  be  rejected.<br \/>\nAccordingly,  we  hold  that  before the Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal, the<br \/>\npetitioner was given ample opportunity to put forth his case.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  Coming to the other  contention,  it  is  seen  that  the<br \/>\nDeputy  Registrar  of  Co.operative  Societies  is  the competent authority in<br \/>\nrespect of Senior Inspector to issue the charge memo and as per  Rule  14(a)(2<br \/>\n),  the  second  respondent  \/  Joint  Registrar is the competent authority to<br \/>\nimpose punishments like dismissal, reduction in  rank,  removal,  etc.,  under<br \/>\nRule 8 against the Senior Inspector of Co.operative Societies.  As a matter of<br \/>\nfact, this  information  is  also found in the dismissal order itself.  We are<br \/>\nsatisfied that the second respondent has acted  only  based  on  the  relevant<br \/>\nRules and there is no substance in the allegation made by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.   Coming  to  the question of discrimination, viz., others<br \/>\nwho are said to have been involved in  similar  charges  were  awarded  lesser<br \/>\npunishment and only in the case of the petitioner, punishment of dismissal was<br \/>\nimposed.   First  of all, except the general statement, the petitioner has not<br \/>\nfurnished necessary details of the persons concerned,  their  involvement  and<br \/>\nthe ultimate  punishment  imposed  on them.  Secondly, when the petitioner was<br \/>\nholding additional charge of Special Officer for 14 Co.operative Societies, he<br \/>\nhad made 13  irregular  appointments,  43  irregular  promotions,  ordered  53<br \/>\nirregular  pay  revisions  and  also  was responsible for issuing 10 irregular<br \/>\nloans.  In this way, he has caused heavy loss to the tune of Rs.7,65,855\/-  to<br \/>\n14 Co.  operative Societies.  Further, out of 55 charges, 46 were proved and 9<br \/>\nalone were not proved in the domestic enquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  We have already referred to the  fact  that  the  petitioner  was<br \/>\ngiven adequate  opportunity  before  the  Enquiry  Officer.  It is also not in<br \/>\ndispute that in respect of loss caused to the Societies, surcharge proceedings<br \/>\nhad been initiated and he was asked to pay the loss caused to  the  Societies.<br \/>\nIt  is  also  stated  that against the said order, the petitioner preferred an<br \/>\nappeal before the competent forum and the  same  is  pending.    We  are  also<br \/>\nsatisfied  that  the  second  respondent  after  taking into consideration the<br \/>\nrepresentation of the  petitioner  on  the  report  of  the  Domestic  Enquiry<br \/>\nOfficer,  connected  records, the gravity of proved charges, and consequential<br \/>\nloss caused to the Societies, has  come  to  the  conclusion  to  dismiss  the<br \/>\npetitioner from  service.   All these aspects have also been considered by the<br \/>\nTribunal  and  while  dismissing  the  Original  Application  filed   by   the<br \/>\npetitioner, the Tribunal concluded that since the charges are grave in nature,<br \/>\nand the applicant therein \/ petitioner herein acted in a highhanded manner, as<br \/>\nwell  as he has caused loss amounting to nearly Rs.7.5 lakhs to the Societies,<br \/>\nfor which he was the Special Officer, the punishment of dismissal  imposed  on<br \/>\nhim is  just and adequate to the proved charges.  In the light of the abundant<br \/>\nmaterials, we are in agreement with the said  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the<br \/>\nTribunal  and  do not find any valid reason or justification to interfere with<br \/>\nthe impugned order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In the light of what is stated above, the writ petition  fails<br \/>\nand the same is dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>kh<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Registrar of Co.operative<br \/>\nSocieties,<br \/>\nN.V.N.  Maaligai,<br \/>\nNo.170 E.V.R.  Periyar Road<br \/>\nKilpauk, Chennai 600 10.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Joint Registrar of Co.operative<br \/>\nSocieties, Ramakrishna Road,<br \/>\nSalem 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Registrar<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal<br \/>\nCity Civil Court Buildings<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06\/12\/2005 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM and THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN Writ Petition No.19840 OF 2003 M. Adaikann ..Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Registrar of Co.operative Societies, N.V.N. Maaligai, No.170 E.V.R. Periyar [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-25T08:45:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-25T08:45:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2056,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005\",\"name\":\"M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-25T08:45:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-25T08:45:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-25T08:45:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005"},"wordCount":2056,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005","name":"M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-25T08:45:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-adaikann-vs-the-registrar-of-co-operative-on-6-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Adaikann vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative on 6 December, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107022","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}