A MADHAVA ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the Members of 2nd respondent-Society. They are seeking to quash the entire proceedings in the suit in O. S. No. 264 of 2003 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore. The suit was filed to declare the election notice issued as null and void. The Trial Court granted interim order restraining conduct of election till the disposal of the suit. These writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings in the suit on the principal ground that there is express bar of suit under Section 118 (l) (c) of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act as the basis for the suit falls within the definition of "dispute" under Section 70 (2) (c) of the Act.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for respondents 4 to 7 filed detailed counter-statement questioning the locus stande of the petitioners and maintainability of writ petitions on the ground that application could have been filed for vacating the interim order. In this regard, the decisions reported in Punjab National Bank v O. C. Krishnan and others and M/s. Parijatha and Another v Kamalaksha Nayak and others have been relied upon. To contend that it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit, the decision in Ramesh chand Ardawatiya v Anil Panjwani, is pressed into service. In other words, the contention urged on behalf of the above respondents is that since alternative remedy is available for the petitioners against the impugned order, this writ petitions shall not be entertained by this court.

(3.) TO answer the contentions urged on behalf of respondents 4 to 7, it is necessary to look into the reliefs sought for in the suits and they are.