{"id":159414,"date":"2011-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011"},"modified":"2018-12-01T08:12:57","modified_gmt":"2018-12-01T02:42:57","slug":"r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 21\/01\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE  M.VENUGOPAL\n\nW.P.(MD)No. 9364 of 2006\n&\nM.P.(MD) Nos. 1 of 2006 and 1 of 2008\n\nR. Muthukrishnan\t\t\t \t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1. The Registrar of Cooperative\nSocieties, Chennai - 10.\n\n2. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,\nMadurai Region, Madurai.\n\n3. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,\nMadurai Circle, Madurai. \t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\t\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to\nissue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in\nproceeding Rc.No. 39355\/2005\/EM.I(2) dated 4.10.2006 and quash the same and pass\nsuch further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the\ncircumstances of the case.\n\n!For Petitioner             ... Mr. R. Vijayakumar\n^For Respondent \t    ... Mr. D. Sasikumar\n\t\t\t        Government Advocate\t\n\t\t\n:ORDER\t\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the relief of
\nCertiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in proceeding Rc.No.
\n39355\/2005\/EM.I(2) dated 4.10.2006 and to quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The petitioner has been appointed as Junior Assistant on 02.08.1976
\nthrough Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Subsequently, he has been promoted
\nas Junior Inspector during the year 1980 and further promoted as Senior
\nInspector in the year 1983. He has been served with a Charge Memo on 22.7.1992
\nalleging that the petitioner was engaged in private trade of selling tiles. A
\ndomestic enquiry has been conducted and an enquiry report on 28.4.1994 has been
\nsubmitted in and by which, it is held that the charge levelled against the
\npetitioner has been found to be proved and consequently, a punishment of
\nwithholding of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect
\nhas been imposed on the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 30.12.1993, a
\npanel has been prepared for promotion to the post of           Co-operative Sub
\nRegistrar by the first respondent and he has been placed at serial No. 132 as
\nper the panel. On 24.2.1994, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued
\norders of promotion, promoting the petitioner as a Co-operative Sub Registrar.
\nHe joined as Co-operative Sub Registrar on 23.12.1995.Currently, the petitioner
\nis working as a Cooperative Sub Registrar (Package) in the office of the third
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. On 4.10.2006, the First Respondent\/Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
\nChennai, passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s promotion order
\ndated 24.2.1994 and reverted the petitioner as  Senior Inspector alleging that
\nhis promotion effected in the year 1994 has been an erroneous one. Also, the
\nimpugned order of the first respondent dated 4.10.2006 proceeds on the footing
\nthat the petitioner’s name should not have been included in the promotion panel,
\nwhen the disciplinary proceedings have been pending.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
\npunishment imposed on the petitioner dated 28.04.1994 stopping the increment for
\na period of three months without cumulative effect got expired on 28.07.1994 and
\nas a matter of fact, the petitioner has become eligible to be considered for
\npromotion on cessation of punishment namely, viz. on 28.7.1994 itself and even
\nif the petitioner has been promoted after the punishment period, then he would
\nhave been promoted in the year 1994 itself and as on date, he is eligible to
\nfunction as Co-operative Sub Registrar.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
\nbeen promoted during the year 1994 and the said promotion cannot be cancelled
\nafter an expiry of twelve years. Added further, since the petitioner has already
\ncompleted punishment in the year 1994 itself, his promotion cannot be cancelled
\nin the year 2006 quoting the pending disciplinary proceedings, when promotion
\nhas been granted.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the learned counsel
\nfor the petitioner that the first respondent has failed to appreciate an
\nimportant fact that after the year 1994 more than 300 persons, who are juniors
\nto the petitioner, have been promoted and the petitioner, who is eligible to be
\npromoted in the year 1994 itself, cannot be demoted in the year 2006.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the
\npetitioner has already undergone the punishment and as such, he cannot be
\npunished for the second time by demoting him after a lapse of twelve years. In
\nshort, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
\norder of the first respondent dated 4.10.2006 is contrary to law and illegal
\none.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The learned counsel for the petitioner cites decision of the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court in M.A. Hameed Vs. State of A.P. and another reported in 2001 (9)
\nSCC page 261, wherein it is laid down as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The reversion of the appellant after he held the higher post for more than a
\ndecade was wholly unjustified. If his appointment was temporary or irregular in
\nany manner he should have been reverted within a reasonable period. Even after
\nthe reversion order was passed the appellant continued to hold the post till
\n1985 under the stay order granted by the Tribunal. So the reversion of the
\nappellant from the post of District Inspector of Local Funds (Accounts) after a
\nperiod of 11 years has done more  harm than good”.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. He also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shekhar
\nGhosh Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2007(1) SCC 331 at page 333,
\nwherein it is held thus:\n<\/p>\n
“In this case, the respondents accept that the appellant was entitled to a
\nhearing. All the necessary ingredients of principles of natural justice were
\nthus required to be complied with. The appellant had not been given adequate
\nopportunity of hearing inasmuch as: (i) the hearing  was sought to be given was
\na post-decisional one, which is bad in law; (ii) a copy of the complaint was not
\nsupplied to the appellant at furtherance if not proposed that a mistake was
\nsought to be rectified; (iii) no charges were framed; (iv) no witness was
\nexamined; and (v) no inquiry officer arrived at any finding that the appellant
\nwas guilty of the charges levelled against him”.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The learned counsel for the petitioner brings it to the notice of this
\nCourt the decision of this Court, in S.Ganapathy Vs. Commissioner of Commercial
\nTaxes, Chennai and others reported in 2006(3) MLJ  532 at page 533, wherein it
\nis held that “settled law that once employee is conferred benefit of promotion
\nand pay scale, authority cannot penalize such employee after several years, on
\nground of mistake committed by  authority”.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Conversely, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate
\nappearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that a charge as per Rule 17(b) of the
\nTamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules has been framed against
\nthe petitioner on 22.07.1992 itself in regard to the misconduct involving
\nviolation of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules and at the time of
\nconsideration of the panel, a charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
\nServices (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is pending and as per the instructions
\ncontained in G.O. Ms. No.368 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
\ndated 18.10.1993 pendency of charge under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil
\nServices (Discipline and Appeal) Rules will be a bar for the promotion at the
\ntime of consideration of the promotion panel.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Proceeding further, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
\nrespondents contends that the petitioner has been awarded with a punishment of
\nstoppage of increment for three months and as per G.O. Ms. No. 756, Public
\n(Ser.K) Department dated 22.4.1964  an erroneous order of promotion may be
\ncancelled by the competent authority straightaway without providing any show
\ncause  notice to the affected individual concerned and the first respondent has
\nacted in terms of the instruction of the Government referred to above and as a
\nmatter of fact, an erroneous promotion can only be set-right by cancelling
\npromotion.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Apart from the above, the learned Government Advocate appearing for
\nthe respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner will be considered for
\npromotion for Co-operative Sub Registrar with actual seniority as he claims, but
\nit can be implemented only after reverting him    to Senior Inspector post by
\ncanceling the erroneous promotion. In short, the action of the respondents is
\nsustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In effect, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 3 contends that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and
\nthe same is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. A perusal of the impugned order dated 4.10.2006 of the first
\nrespondent in Rc.No. 39355\/2005\/EM.I(2) shows that the petitioner as Senior
\nInspector of Co-operative Societies has been included at serial No. 132 and he
\nhas been promoted as Co-operative Sub Registrar and allotted to Villupuram
\nRegion as per proceedings of Joint Registrar(Intensive Agricultural Area
\nProgramme) proceedings Rc.3976\/94\/EM.1 dated 24.2.1994 and that when the panel
\nhas been approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, charges under Rule
\n17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules have been
\npending against him. Also, a scrutiny of the impugned order dated 4.10.2006 of
\nthe first respondent inherently points out that the inclusion of the
\npetitioner’s name in the panel of Cooperative Sub Registrar  as on 1.5.1993 is
\nagainst the instruction issued  in the G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and
\nAdministrative Department dated 18.10.1993 and his promotion as Cooperative Sub
\nRegistrar is an erroneous one. As a matter of fact, as per G.O. Ms. No. 756,
\nPublic (Ser.K) Department dated 22.4.1964, the order of promotion may be
\ncancelled by the competent authority straight away without providing any show
\ncause notice to the concerned individual. Moreover, in pursuance of the
\ndirections of the Government, the name of the petitioner has been cancelled in
\nthe approved panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as the Cooperative Sub
\nRegistrar as on 1.5.1993 communicated in the proceedings of the Registrar dated
\n30.12.1993.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Continuing further, the order of the Joint Registrar (Intensive
\nAgricultural Area Programme) proceedings dated 24.2.1994 promoting the
\npetitioner as Cooperative Sub Registrar has been cancelled and he has been
\nreverted as Senior Inspector with effect from the date he joined as Cooperative
\nSub Registrar. Consequent upon the cancellation of the petitioner’s name in the
\npanel of Senior Inspector fit for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrar as on
\n1.5.1993 and on reversion as Senior Inspector, the petitioner has been allotted
\nto Theni Region.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. In short, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 4.10.2006
\nrefers to the petitioner’s pay being in the category of the Senior Inspector of
\nCooperative Societies. As far as the present case is concerned, it is not known
\nas to how the petitioner’s name has been included in the panel for promotion as
\nCooperative Sub Registrar, when a charge under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil
\nServices (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is pending. The charge levelled against
\nthe petitioner as per Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and
\nAppeal) Rules in regard to his conduct\/act in indulging himself in private trade
\nof selling tiles is a serious one and the said charge is a major one. The
\npetitioner is not responsible for he was promoted as Cooperative Sub Registrar
\nand he has not suppressed any information in this regard. It is for the
\nEmployer\/Appropriate Authority to consider the petitioner for including his name
\nin a panel for promotion. Though a plea is raised on behalf of the respondents
\nthat cancelling of erroneous promotion in respect of the petitioner is not
\nequivalent to any punishment and period of limitation does not have any effect
\non the proceedings of the first respondent dated 4.10.2006, this Court is of the
\nconsidered view that such plea cannot be countenanced in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Admittedly, the petitioner has been promoted as Cooperative Sub
\nRegistrar on 24.2.1994 and he has joined in the promoted post on 23.12.1995. He
\nhas been recruited as Junior Assistant on 2.8.1976 through Tamil Nadu Public
\nService Commission. Subsequently, during the year 1980, he has been promoted as
\nSenior Inspector and later in the year 1983, he has been promoted as Senior
\nInspector. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is governed by the Tamil Nadu Civil
\nServices (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and also the fundamental Rules, it passed
\nbeyond once apprehension when the petitioner has been issued with the Charge
\nMemo dated 22.7.1992 with allegation that he has been engaged in private trade
\nof selling tiles. After conducting domestic enquiry, enquiry report has been
\nsubmitted on 28.4.1994 whereby and whereunder, the charge levelled against the
\npetitioner has been held to be proved and punishment of stoppage of increment
\nwithout cumulative effect for three months, has been ordered, then how his name
\nhas been included in the panel for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrar
\nwithout looking into the Rules and regulations governing promotion at a time
\nwhen the petitioner has been promoted.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.  In M.P. No. 1 of 2006 in W.P. No. 9463 of 2006  this Court on
\n12.10.2006 has passed an order of interim stay and by means of an order dated
\n1.12.2009 in M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2006 this Court has made the interim stay granted
\nin M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2006 as an absolute one.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. It is a well accepted principle in law that if an individual’s
\npromotion is an erroneous one or not a proper one, by not following rules and
\nregulations that are in force, then certainly, the first respondent or concerned
\nauthority, as the case may be, ought to have reverted the petitioner within a
\nreasonable period. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has been
\npromoted as Cooperative Sub Registrar on 24.9.1994 and the impugned order of
\nreversion has been passed by the first respondent on 4.10.2006 after a lapse of
\nnearly twelve years.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. Added further, the petitioner’s punishment period has also come to an
\nend. Soon after the reversion order passed by the first respondent on 4.10.2006,
\nthe petitioner has approached this Court on 10.10.2006 and has obtained an
\ninterim stay earlier in M.P. No. 1 of 2006 on 12.10.2006 and subsequently, the
\nstay order has been made absolute in M.P. No. 1 of 2006 by this Court on
\n1.12.2009. The reversion of the petitioner from the post of Co-operative Sub
\nRegistrar to the level of Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies after a
\nperiod of twelve years, has caused more harm than good, in the considered
\nopinion of this Court. Even though the reversion order has been passed by the
\nfirst respondent on 4.10.2006, the petitioner has continued to hold the post of
\nCooperative Sub Registrar till date under the stay order granted initially by
\nthis Court in M.P. No. 1 of 2006 dated 12.10.2006 and consequently, made
\nabsolute in M.P. No. 1 of 2006 as per the order dated 1.12.2009.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that since the
\nreversion of the petitioner from the post of Co-operative Sub Registrar to the
\npost of Senior Inspector is after a lapse of twelve years, it has caused more
\nharm than good.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. Accordingly, in the light of detailed discussions and on an overall
\nassessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, which float on surface in
\nan integral fashion, this Court allows the Writ Petition leaving the parties to
\nbear their own costs and sets aside the order of reversion in Rc.No.
\n39355\/2005\/EM.I(2) dated 4.10.2006 Consequently, connected M.Ps are also closed.
\nNo costs.\n<\/p>\n
ses<\/p>\n
To,\n<\/p>\n
1. The Registrar of Co-operative
\nSocieties, Chennai – 10.\n<\/p>\n
2. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
\nMadurai Region, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
3. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
\nMadurai Circle, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.(MD)No. 9364 of 2006 & M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 of 2006 and 1 of 2008 R. Muthukrishnan … Petitioner Vs. 1. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai […]<\/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-159414","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-01T02:42:57+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-01T02:42:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2407,\"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\\\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011\",\"name\":\"R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-01T02:42:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-01T02:42:57+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-01T02:42:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011"},"wordCount":2407,"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\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011","name":"R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-01T02:42:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-muthukrishnan-vs-the-registrar-of-cooperative-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar Of Cooperative on 21 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/159414","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=159414"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159414\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}