LAWS(KER)-2017-6-80

MUTHALAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., EKM. Vs. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.

Decided On June 14, 2017
Muthalapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ekm. Appellant
V/S
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a primary co - operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to them, they have deposited an amount of Rs.30,00,000.00 as fixed deposit with the 1st respondent, Kerala State Co - operative Rubber Marketing Federation Limited ('Rubber Mark' for short) from the year 1997 onwards. They allege that even though the fixed deposits had matured for payment, the 1st respondent is refusing to make payment of the proceeds of the same to the petitioner citing one reason or the other, which are completely unsustainable in law. The petitioner, therefore has filed this writ petition, praying that the 1st respondent be directed to return to them the amounts covered by the fixed deposits maintained by them with the 1st respondent.

(2.) I have heard Sri. P. V. Baby, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent.

(3.) There are not many facts in dispute in this case. The fact that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.30,00,000.00 with the 1st respondent is admitted. The 1st respondent admits that this amount of Rs.30,00,000.00 and the interest thereon were renewed as fixed deposits from time to time and concedes that as on 26/09/2015, the total amount due to the petitioner is Rs.64,77,246.87/-. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent also cedes that Rubber Mark had issued Ext.P13 acknowledgement to the petitioner wherein this figure is admitted. He says that the only reason why the Rubber Mark is unable to make payment these amounts to the petitioner is because of extreme financial constraints and lack of resources. According to him, attempts were made even by the Registrar of Co - operative Societies through the good offices of the Honourable Minister for Co - operation to have a settlement with various primary societies like the petitioner who had deposited money with the 1st respondent. The learned Standing Counsel asserts that Ext.R1(c) is the minutes of one such meeting, which was held on 11/03/2014, wherein it was agreed that the Rubber Mark would repay only the principal amount to the primary Co - operative societies like the petitioner.