{"id":243860,"date":"2008-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008"},"modified":"2019-02-01T18:39:07","modified_gmt":"2019-02-01T13:09:07","slug":"board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 30 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 30 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 23615 of 2008(J)\n\n\n1. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MUKKOM\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. THE MUKKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE\n\n3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\n\n Dated :30\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n         THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.\n\n  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n            W.P.(C).No.23615 of 2008-J\n\n  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n     Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008.\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
1.The second petitioner and the second respondent<\/p>\n
 are service co-operative banks registered under<\/p>\n
 the  Kerala  Co-operative   Societies  Act,   1969,<\/p>\n
 hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. The area of<\/p>\n
 operation of the second petitioner is the Mukkam<\/p>\n
 panchayat limits and the area of operation of the<\/p>\n
 second  respondent  is   the   Karassery  panchayat<\/p>\n
 limits, going by the averments in paragraph 1 of<\/p>\n
 the   writ   petition.    The   second   petitioner<\/p>\n
 originally   had  Thiruvampady,    Kodiyathur  and<\/p>\n
 Karassery panchayat limits also within its area<\/p>\n
 of operation and later, Karassery panchayat was<\/p>\n
 earmarked  as the area of operation of the second<\/p>\n
 respondent   and   Thiruvampady    and   Kodiyathur<\/p>\n
 panchayat limits became the area of operation of<\/p>\n
 Thiruvampady   Service    Co-operative   Bank  and<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008          -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 Kodiyathur Service Co-operative Bank. The second<\/p>\n
 petitioner was registered in 1956 under the Act<\/p>\n
 and the second respondent, in 1995.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.The   second    respondent    purchased  an  item of<\/p>\n
 property having an extent of 18.980 cents in<\/p>\n
 Thazhekkode amsom which falls within the area of<\/p>\n
 operation of the second petitioner.          The first<\/p>\n
 respondent Joint Registrar accorded sanction for<\/p>\n
 such purchase. The second petitioner’s challenge<\/p>\n
 to that was repelled by the Division Bench as per<\/p>\n
 Ext.P4      judgment  holding     that  the  area   of<\/p>\n
 operation      is    a     concept    different   from<\/p>\n
 establishment of an administrative office and<\/p>\n
 therefore,     the   second     respondent cannot  be<\/p>\n
 prevented     from  establishing     its  head  office<\/p>\n
 within that piece of land despite the fact that<\/p>\n
 it is within the area of operation of the second<\/p>\n
 petitioner. It was accordingly held that the<\/p>\n
 establishment of the head office of the second<\/p>\n
 respondent within the area of operation of the<\/p>\n
 second petitioner would not violate Section 7(1)<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008          -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 (c) of the Act. The Bench made it clear that by<\/p>\n
 establishing      such  head    office,  the second<\/p>\n
 respondent shall not canvass any business from<\/p>\n
 the area of the second petitioner and to that<\/p>\n
 extent, prohibition under Section 7(1)(c) would<\/p>\n
 certainly apply.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.In    the    meanwhile,   on   1-3-2006, the first<\/p>\n
 respondent rejected the request of the second<\/p>\n
 respondent for amending its bye-laws to include<\/p>\n
 2.15.980 acres of land also within its area of<\/p>\n
 operation which extent would also include the<\/p>\n
 18.980 cents purchased by the second respondent<\/p>\n
 to house its head office.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.Ext.P9 evidences that the Government wrote to the<\/p>\n
 Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 20-4-2007<\/p>\n
 stating that in view of Ext.P4 judgment holding<\/p>\n
 that the establishment of the head office of the<\/p>\n
 second respondent within the area of operation of<\/p>\n
 the second petitioner would not violate Section 7<\/p>\n
 (1)(c), no exemption from the operation of that<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008       -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 provision is required for such purchase. After<\/p>\n
 that communication dated 20-4-2007, the President<\/p>\n
 of the second respondent made Ext.P10 request to<\/p>\n
 the     Government supported    by  the   Board’s<\/p>\n
 Resolution No.XIV dated 28-4-2007 requesting that<\/p>\n
 the second respondent may be granted exemption<\/p>\n
 from the provisions of Section 7(1)(c) of the Act<\/p>\n
 in    relation  to 2  acres   15.980 cents  lying<\/p>\n
 adjacent to 18.980 cents purchased earlier and on<\/p>\n
 which the head office stands. Acting on Ext.P10<\/p>\n
 and overruling the contentions of the second<\/p>\n
 petitioner, the Government issued Ext.P14 order<\/p>\n
 dated 4-7-2008 granting exemption from Section 7<\/p>\n
 (1)(c) of the Act, as sought for by the second<\/p>\n
 respondent. This is under challenge.<\/p>\n
5.In its gist, the contentions in support of the<\/p>\n
 writ petition are that the second petitioner and<\/p>\n
 second respondent are primary agricultural credit<\/p>\n
 societies, having defined areas of operations and<\/p>\n
 being societies of the similar type, there can be<\/p>\n
 no overlapping of the areas of operation and that<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008         -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 such principle has been completely ignored while<\/p>\n
 passing the impugned Ext.P14 order and that the<\/p>\n
 request      for exemption    stood rejected as per<\/p>\n
 Ext.P9 and in the absence of a specific provision<\/p>\n
 conferring a power of review, Ext.P14 order ought<\/p>\n
 not    to    have been  issued    acting  on Ext.P10<\/p>\n
 application for review of the decision contained<\/p>\n
 in Ext.P9; and that in view of Ext.P4 judgment,<\/p>\n
 the    parties   are   categorically   held to  the<\/p>\n
 situation that the permission granted to the<\/p>\n
 second respondent to house its head office in the<\/p>\n
 area of operation of the second petitioner is on<\/p>\n
 the condition that the second respondent shall<\/p>\n
 not carry on any business activities from the<\/p>\n
 area of operation of the second petitioner and to<\/p>\n
 that extent, the provision in Section 7(1)(c)<\/p>\n
 would certainly apply.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.The second respondent, in its counter affidavit,<\/p>\n
 contends that Ext.R2(a) and R2(b), the respective<\/p>\n
 bye-laws of the second petitioner and the second<\/p>\n
 respondent, would show that D Class members of<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008        -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 both the societies are spread over in different<\/p>\n
 parts of Kozhikode taluk and therefore, there<\/p>\n
 would virtually be no     meaning in saying that the<\/p>\n
 transactions     are  to     be confined  within   a<\/p>\n
 particular     area and    still further  that   the<\/p>\n
 proposal is to have an outlet for transporting<\/p>\n
 agricultural produce and the marketing complex<\/p>\n
 and the head office are to be housed in the land<\/p>\n
 in question, while there is no bus stand at<\/p>\n
 Karassery, in the area of operation of the second<\/p>\n
 respondent.     It  is  also   contended  that   the<\/p>\n
 principle laid down by the Division Bench in<\/p>\n
 Ext.P4 judgment governs the situation only as<\/p>\n
 regards the applicability of Section 7(1)(c) and<\/p>\n
 it does not, in any manner, impair the power of<\/p>\n
 the Government to grant exemption to the second<\/p>\n
 respondent from the provision of Section 7(1)(c)<\/p>\n
 and still further that the impugned order of<\/p>\n
 exemption is a controlled one, inhibiting the<\/p>\n
 second respondent from doing any activities in<\/p>\n
 banking in the area of operation of the second<\/p>\n
 petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008        -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
7.Section 7(1)(c) of the Act requires that the area<\/p>\n
 of operation of a society and the area of another<\/p>\n
 society of similar type do not overlap. There is<\/p>\n
 no controversy that the second petitioner and the<\/p>\n
 second respondent are societies of similar type.<\/p>\n
 It is also not in dispute that the land in<\/p>\n
 question falls within the area of operation of<\/p>\n
 the second petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.Section     101 of the      Act provides that the<\/p>\n
 Government may, if they are satisfied that it is<\/p>\n
 necessary to do so in public interest, by general<\/p>\n
 or special order, for reasons to be recorded,<\/p>\n
 exempt any society or any class of societies from<\/p>\n
 any of the provisions of the Act or direct that<\/p>\n
 such provisions shall apply to such society or<\/p>\n
 class of societies subject to such modification<\/p>\n
 as may be specified in the order. The power of<\/p>\n
 the    Government  under     Section 101  to  grant<\/p>\n
 exemption having been held to be constitutionally<\/p>\n
 valid in Pampady Rural Co-op. Housing Society v.<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008         -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 Joint Registrar [1986 KLT 921], it was laid down<\/p>\n
 in Joint Registrar      v. M.R.Cherian and others<\/a><\/p>\n
 [1994 (1) KLJ 603] that the modification that may<\/p>\n
 be made in exercise of power under Section 101<\/p>\n
 should      be  confined    to alteration  of  such<\/p>\n
 character which keeps the policy of the Act in<\/p>\n
 tact. While the learned senior counsel appearing<\/p>\n
 for the petitioners referred to the judgment in<\/p>\n
 Q.T.L.C.& T.Co-op. Society v. State of Kerala<\/p>\n
 [1989     (1)  KLT  350]   laying down  that public<\/p>\n
 interest cannot be the interest of a particular<\/p>\n
 society and that private interest of a particular<\/p>\n
 society      cannot be    considered as   a  public<\/p>\n
 interest, the learned senior counsel appearing<\/p>\n
 for    the    second  respondent  referred  to  the<\/p>\n
 judgment of the Division Bench in Feroke Service<\/p>\n
 Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala<\/a> [1995 (2) KLT<\/p>\n
 404] holding that the power under Section 101 is,<\/p>\n
 in no way, limited or curtailed by Section 7(1)<\/p>\n
 (c) of the Act and in view of the wide power<\/p>\n
 given to the Government under Section 101, it<\/p>\n
 cannot be held that in a particular situation<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008          -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 where public interest demands, Section 7(1)(c)<\/p>\n
 cannot be relaxed, though the power under Section<\/p>\n
 101 cannot be used by Government in a whimsical<\/p>\n
 or arbitrary manner and could be exercised only<\/p>\n
 in such cases where public interest demands the<\/p>\n
 exercise of such power.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.The learned senior counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
 petitioners argued that Ext.P10 is essentially an<\/p>\n
 application for review of the decision contained<\/p>\n
 in Ext.P9 and that it does not contain any reason<\/p>\n
 for    granting    exemption   which could  be  taken<\/p>\n
 cognizance of, for the purpose of exercise of<\/p>\n
 power under Section 101 of the Act and that the<\/p>\n
 reasons stated in Ext.P12; in particular, the<\/p>\n
 nature and lie of the property and the matters<\/p>\n
 relating to the availability of road and river<\/p>\n
 frontage      etc., are   not   matters reflected in<\/p>\n
 Ext.P10, wherein all that is stated is that the<\/p>\n
 exemption      is   required    for  providing  legal<\/p>\n
 protection for the building that is proposed to<\/p>\n
 be put up. It is also, pithily, pointed out that<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008         -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 no public interest is ever demonstrated by the<\/p>\n
 facts of the case in hand which, at the best,<\/p>\n
 shows only a commercial interest of the second<\/p>\n
 respondent, which is only its private interest<\/p>\n
 and that the Government have acted in excess of<\/p>\n
 authority under Section 101 of the Act.<\/p>\n
10.The learned senior counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
 second respondent argued that the availability of<\/p>\n
 power under Section 101 is beyond dispute and it<\/p>\n
 has been fairly established that public interest<\/p>\n
 is    a    concept that    takes   into   consideration<\/p>\n
 different aspects and that the requirement of<\/p>\n
 movement      of  agricultural     produce  and  other<\/p>\n
 materials      are  matters     of   public   interest,<\/p>\n
 particularly when the         entire area of operation<\/p>\n
 of the second respondent is without any bus stand<\/p>\n
 and access for appropriate movement of goods. He<\/p>\n
 accordingly pointed out that the Government have<\/p>\n
 rightly exercised the authority. It was further<\/p>\n
 argued that the pleadings in the writ petition do<\/p>\n
 not disclose that the impugned decision has, on<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008        -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 facts,     in  any manner,    impaired  the existing<\/p>\n
 activities of the petitioners and no case of<\/p>\n
 injustice     is, thus,     demonstrated,  warranting<\/p>\n
 interference in exercise of jurisdiction under<\/p>\n
 Article 226 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
11.The power under Section 101 of the Act, as<\/p>\n
 enunciated in Feroke Service Co-op. Bank Ltd.<\/p>\n
 (supra), was rendered taking note of the decision<\/p>\n
 of the Apex Court in Registrar, Co-operative<\/p>\n
 Societies v. K.Kunjambu {AIR 1980 SC 350) laying<\/p>\n
 down that provision for such relaxation is made<\/p>\n
 to enable the Government to relax the occasional<\/p>\n
 rigour of the provisions of the Act and to<\/p>\n
 advance the object of the Act. The Division Bench<\/p>\n
 laid down as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “As the power given to the Government
\n     under S.101 of the Kerala Co-operative
\n     Societies Act can very well be exercised
\n     by the Government to advance the policy
\n     and objects of the Act and to safeguard
\n     public interest, it is not possible for us<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008         -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
     to hold that the power under S.101 is in
\n     any way limited or curtailed by S.7(1)(c)
\n     of the Act. As wide power is given to the
\n     Government under this Section taking into
\n     consideration the overall public interest
\n     it cannot be held that in a particular
\n     situation where public interest demands
\n     S.7(1)(c) cannot be relaxed. However, we
\n     make it clear the power under S.101 cannot
\n     be used by the Government in a whimsical
\n     or arbitrary manner. Only in such cases
\n     where public interest demands that the
\n     said power can be exercised.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.Considering the scope of Section 101 of the Act,<\/p>\n
 it was laid down in Q.T.L.C.& T.Co-op. Society<\/p>\n
 (supra) as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “As per that Section the Government
\n      are given power inter alia to exempt any
\n      society or class of societies from any of
\n      the provisions of the Act if they are
\n      satisfied that it is necessary so do to
\n      in the public interest. It means that for
\n      exercising the power u\/s.101 of the act,
\n      the Government must be satisfied that
\n      there    is  necessity     to invoke  the<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008         -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      provisions of that Section in the public
\n      interest. Public interest cannot be the
\n      interest of a particular society. The
\n      fact that a particular society is running
\n      at a loss is no ground to invoke the
\n      powers u\/s.101 of the Act. Nor can that
\n      be treated as a ground for exempting it
\n      from the provisions of the Act in public
\n      interest.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.Dilating on Section 7(1) of the Act, it was<\/p>\n
 further laid down in Q.T.L.C.& T.Co-op. Society<\/p>\n
 (supra) as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “S.7(1)    of   the   Act   lays  down  five
\n     conditions to be satisfied for a society
\n     to get registration. One of the conditions
\n     is that the area of operation of the
\n     proposed society and the area of operation
\n     of another society of similar type should
\n     not overlap. This condition is a condition
\n     precedent for a co-operative society to
\n     come     into  existence.    A   co-operative
\n     society    which  has   come  into existence
\n     after complying with the above conditions
\n     cannot be allowed to violate the same. The<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008        -: 14 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
     power of the Government u\/s. 101 should
\n     not be exercised in such a manner as to
\n     nullify the very condition, the compliance
\n     of which is mandatory for a society to
\n     come into existence. The power of the
\n     Government cannot be exercised to defeat
\n     such a salutary condition.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.Adverting to the various clauses in Exts.R2(a)<\/p>\n
 and R2(b) bye-laws of the second petitioner and<\/p>\n
 the second respondent respectively, it can be<\/p>\n
 seen that their objects include provisions for<\/p>\n
 collecting the produce of the members for sale,<\/p>\n
 for purchase etc. and there can be no ground to<\/p>\n
 state that the second petitioner does not have,<\/p>\n
 as its objects, the marketing of agricultural<\/p>\n
 produce. Ext.P10 does not show that the second<\/p>\n
 respondent has purchased any item of property<\/p>\n
 other than the 18.980 cents which it purchased<\/p>\n
 for housing its head office, which purpose was<\/p>\n
 recognized     in Ext.P4      judgment as one not<\/p>\n
 impinching Section 7(1)(c) of the Act. Beyond<\/p>\n
 that, the request in Ext.P10 does not reflect<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008         -: 15 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 anything      other than     the  second  respondent’s<\/p>\n
 commercial interests, which essentially are its<\/p>\n
 private interests. Though Ext.P14 states that the<\/p>\n
 agricultural marketing complex could be put up<\/p>\n
 with funds provided by NABARD, such funds cannot<\/p>\n
 be utilized beyond the area of operation of a<\/p>\n
 society. The statements in Ext.P14 regarding the<\/p>\n
 road, river, bus stand etc.          relatable to the<\/p>\n
 land, are not part of the materials reflected in<\/p>\n
 Ext.P10. It is not in dispute that the area of<\/p>\n
 operation of the second petitioner, at the time<\/p>\n
 of its registration in 1956, was spread over the<\/p>\n
 area of four panchayats, Mukkam, Thiruvampady,<\/p>\n
 Kodiyathur and Karassery and later, Thiruvampady<\/p>\n
 and Kodiyathur became the area of operation of<\/p>\n
 Thiruvampady      Service     Co-operative  Bank   and<\/p>\n
 Kodiyathur Service Co-operative Bank         on their<\/p>\n
 formation     and  Karassery    became   the  area of<\/p>\n
 operation      of   the      second   respondent.  As<\/p>\n
 discernible from the preamble of the Act, the<\/p>\n
 enactment is made with a view to provide for the<\/p>\n
 orderly development of the Co-operative sector in<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008         -: 16 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 the State of Kerala. Competition between co-<\/p>\n
 operative societies of same type, on account of<\/p>\n
 the overlapping of their areas of operations<\/p>\n
 cannot      be  held  conducive     for  the  orderly<\/p>\n
 development of co-operative movement. This is the<\/p>\n
 solemn object of Section 7 of the Act as held in<\/p>\n
 Q.T.L.C.& T.Co-op. Society (supra), wherein it<\/p>\n
 has    been    categorically    laid  down  that  the<\/p>\n
 legislative     direction    contained in  Section 7<\/p>\n
 cannot      be  nullified      or  defeated  by   the<\/p>\n
 Government.     This does not necessarily mean that<\/p>\n
 Section 7(1)(c), in any manner, curtails the<\/p>\n
 power under Section 101. That is why the Division<\/p>\n
 Bench said in Feroke Service Co-op. Bank Ltd.<\/p>\n
 (supra) that the power under Section 101 is wide<\/p>\n
 and the Government can relax, in a particular<\/p>\n
 situation,     even  the     provisions contained in<\/p>\n
 Section 7(1)(c), on taking into consideration the<\/p>\n
 overall public interest, however that such power<\/p>\n
 can be exercised only in cases where public<\/p>\n
 interest demands. With this in view, it cannot<\/p>\n
 but be held that the impugned decision has been<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008         -: 17 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 rendered in violation of the interest of the<\/p>\n
 second petitioner and has been made not on any<\/p>\n
 ground referable to public interest but solely on<\/p>\n
 the basis of the private interest of the second<\/p>\n
 respondent. The impugned action is contrary to<\/p>\n
 the basic principles of co-operation which ought<\/p>\n
 to be the guiding beacon in exercise of power<\/p>\n
 under Section 101 of the Act because equity,<\/p>\n
 social      justice and     economic  development as<\/p>\n
 envisaged by the directive principles of State<\/p>\n
 Policy of the Constitution of India are the<\/p>\n
 objects sought to be achieved by the enactment of<\/p>\n
 the     legislation  in     hand;  for  the   orderly<\/p>\n
 development of the co-operative sector in the<\/p>\n
 State, by organizing the co-operative societies<\/p>\n
 as self governing, democratic institutions, going<\/p>\n
 by the preamble to the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is<\/p>\n
 contrary to law and has been issued in excess of<\/p>\n
 authority under Section 101 of the Act and is,<\/p>\n
 therefore,     unconstitutional    and void.   It is<\/p>\n
WP(C)23615\/2008      -: 18 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 declared so. Resultantly, this writ petition is<\/p>\n
 allowed quashing Ext.P14. No costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                    THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,\nSha\/290908                     JUDGE.\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 30 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 23615 of 2008(J) 1. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MUKKOM … Petitioner 2. THE MUKKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK Vs 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE … Respondent […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-243860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBoard Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 30 September, 2008 - 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\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-01T13:09:07+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 30 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-01T13:09:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2823,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-01T13:09:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 30 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 30 September, 2008 - 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\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-01T13:09:07+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 30 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-01T13:09:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008"},"wordCount":2823,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008","name":"Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-01T13:09:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-directors-of-the-mukkom-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Board Of Directors Of The Mukkom vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 30 September, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/243860","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=243860"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243860\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}