CHOONDACHERRY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs. MEENACHIL RUBBER MARKETING & PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition seeks that the amounts entrusted by it with the Meenachil Rubber Marketing and Processing Co - operative Society Ltd., under fixed deposits, be returned since such deposits have attained maturity; but the said Society, while admitting its liability without any reservation, refuses to repay, trying to obtain shelter on hyper technical defences including that this writ petition is incompetent because a writ petition is not maintainable against a Co - operative Society. Though reliance is placed by the Society on various precedents in an attempt to garner force for this contention, I find, as I will presently say, in the absence of any dispute regarding liability in repayment and in view of their express and unequivocal admission of such liability, to hold against it and to order this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is also a co - operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act and the Rules, who are engaged, inter alia, in banking business. The petitioner says that it is a Class I Special Grade Bank having deposits of more than Rupees One Crore and that it has deposited certain surplus amounts with it in other co - operative institutions as well as in the District Co - operative Bank. The petitioner says that it had accordingly deposited an amount of Rs.90 lakhs in the Meenachil Rubber Marketing and Processing Co - operative Society Ltd. ('the Society' for brevity), the first respondent herein, as fixed deposits, discernible from Exhibit P1 series deposits.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the fixed deposit matured for payment on 14/04/2015 and it alleges that in spite of the deposit having matured for repayment, the first respondent refused to repay its proceeds. They, therefore, say that they have sent legal notices to the first respondent to which it had caused Exhibit P2 reply to be issued. The petitioner asserts that in Exhibit P2 the first respondent has not denied their liability for payment of the amount covered by the fixed deposits but has only explained their inability to make payment on account of their alleged financial constraints. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition seeking directions against the first respondent and its managing committee to repay the amounts covered by Exhibit P1 series of fixed deposits.