Madrasdated High Court · 2025

C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 20214.N.Ramanujam5.T-853Mannargudi Silk Handloom WeaversProduction & Sales Co-operative Society Limited,East Padmasalavar Street,Mannargudi Munsif & Town,Thiruvarur – 614 001.... Respondents(R5 impleaded vide Court order dated 20.03.2024 made in CMP.No.3641 of 2024 in CRP.No.911 of 2021)Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 26.02.2020 in Co-operative CMA.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court cum Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Thiruvarur confirming the recovery surcharge order passed by the 1st respondent in Tha.No.01/2018, Na.Ka.No.345/2017 A2 dated 28.01.2019.For Petitioners:Mrs. Ramadevi. P.T. For Respondent 1:Mr. D.GopalGovernment AdvocateFor Respondent 5:Mr. V.JeevagiridharanFor Respondents:No Appearance2 to 42/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021 ORDERThe petitioners before this Court are the elected Executive Committee members of the Mannargudi Silk Handloom Weavers Production and Sales Co-operative Society Limited. They seek to challenge the order passed by the Principal District cum Special Tribunal for Cooperative Cases, Thiruvarur in CMA.No.2 of 2019 in and by which the learned Judge had confirmed the recovery order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 28.01.2019. The brief facts which preceeds the filing of the above civil revision petition is herein below set out. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they had been elected as the Executive Committee members and had assumed charge in the year 2013. Prior to their assuming charge on 09.05.2013 the 2nd respondent who was the then Secretary of the Society had willfully committed the act of the reduction of the stock and misappropriation of amounts. The 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 20212nd respondent was working as a Manager in the aforementioned society and he was suspended on the ground that he had committed misconduct of reduction of stock from 19.05.2013 onwards. 3. On 16.08.2016 he was asked to handover charge to one Kamarajan. At that time the reduction of stock was noted. Thereafter, enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, hereinafter called the Act, was initiated against the 2nd respondent as well as the petitioners. In the Section 81 enquiry, the 2nd respondent was held solely responsible for the reduction of stock and misappropriation of the entire stock amount of Rs.14,64,702/-. The surcharge proceedings and liability was fixed upon the 2nd respondent who was in custody of the entire stock. However, the 1st respondent proceeded to fix liability upon the petitioners on the ground that they being Executive Committee members of the society they had failed to check the 2nd respondent and prevent him from misappropriating the funds, which is violative of bye laws Section 45 - B (X) and 46 of the 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021Societies Bye Laws.4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had preferred Cooperative CMA.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District cum Special Court for Cooperative Cases, Thiruvarur. The learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur also dismissed the petitioners' appeal and aggrieved by the same the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records. 6. The main argument that has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent's Society have not been able to establish the fact that there was a willful negligence on the side of the petitioners. It is only after the respondent Society is able to prove the willful negligence that they can mulct the petitioners with liability. 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 20217. The learned counsel would further argue that the Delinquent Officer is not directly under supervision of the petitioners and that there is an Audit Officer who is above them who is responsible for supervising the workman of the Cooperative Society. However, this Officer has not been made liable by the 1st respondent as well as the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur. The learned counsel would draw the attention of the Court to the language of Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Society Act. 8. Per contra Mr.D.Gopal, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent Society would draw the attention of the Court to the finding of the 1st respondent as well as the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur. A perusal of which would clearly indicate that the petitioners inspite of being put on notice about the activities of the 2nd respondent had failed to take action against him. Therefore, the order mulcting liability on the petitioners is very much 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021in order. There is no necessity to re-visit the same. 9. Heard the learned counsels on the either side.10. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the absence of proof of willful negligence, the authorities below had committed a grave error in mulcting the liability on the petitioners as well. The learned counsel would rely upon Section 87 of the Act which deals with surcharge proceedings. However, it is seen that Section 87 of the Act has been amended by Act 33 of 2022 and by virtue of this amendment the word “willful” has been deleted from Section 87. Therefore, after the amendment it would suffice if negligence is proved. 11. The 1st respondent in his order dated 28.01.2019 has observed as follows:“epu;thff;FGj; jPu;khdk; 01 ehs; 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 202126/07/2016 d;go jpU/rh/nfhghy;. Vd;gtuplkpUe;j bghWg;g[fis jpU ,uh/fhkuhrd; vd;gtuplk; khw;wpaij bjhlu;e;J 16/08/2016 njjpapy; gl;L nriyfis ,Ug;g[fis kl;Lk; xg;gilf;fg;gl;lJ bjhlu;ghft[k;. ,jpy; Fiwt[ Vw;gl;oUe;jij rk;ke;jg;gl;l jpU ,uh/ fhkuhrd; vd;gtu; Fwpg;gpl;L jpU rh/nfhghy; vd;gtuplk; ifbahg;gk; bgw;Ws;sij epu;thff;FG cWg;gpdu;fs; ftdj;jpy; bfhs;shkYk;. mij r';f epu;thfj; jug;gpy; cWjp bra;J gjpt[ bra;ahkYk;. cldoahf ,Ug;g[Fiwit tR{y; bra;a rk;ke;jg;gl;l jpU rh/nfhghy; kPJ rl;lg;g{u;t eltof;if vLf;fhkYk;. ,ju nfhuhght[ ,Ug;g[ kw;Wk; buhf;f ifapUg;g[ jpU rh/nfhghy; xg;gilf;fhjij ftdj;jpy; bfhs;shkYk; ,Ue;Js;sJ/ 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 202112. This statement clearly shows that despite being put on notice about the misconduct of the 2nd respondent the petitioners have chosen to turn a blind eye to the same. Therefore, there is a negligence on their part. 13. Further, the Principal District Judge in the Judgement in CMA.No.2 of 2019 detailed the responsibilities of the Executive Committee. The learned Judge has observed as follows:“17.epu;thff; FGtpdu;fspd; flikfshtJ r';f gzpahsu;fspd; gzpfs; ruptu nkw;bfhs;sg;gLfpwjh vd;gij nkw;ghu;it bra;J. fz;fhzpf;Fk; bghWg;gpid cs;slf;fpaJ kw;Wk; r';fj;jpd; KG tut[ bryt[ gupkhw;w';fis KGikahf fz;fhzpf;Fk; bghWg;g[ cs;slf;fpajhFk;/ 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021,t;tHf;fpy;. epu;thff; FG cWg;gpdu;fs; Mfpa nky;KiwaPl;lhsu;fs; j';fsJ tpsf;fj;jpy;. 09/05/2013 Mk; njjp r';fk; bjhlu;ghd bghWg;g[fisa[k;. jiytu;. cgjiytu; kw;Wk; ,af;Fdu;fs; bghWg;g[fis bgw;Wf;bfhz;lhu;fs; vd;Wk;. mt;thW bgw;Wf;bfhz;l midj;J bghWg;g[fisa[k; r';fj;jpd; nkyhsu; rh/nfhghy; vd;gtuplk; xg;gilj;J tpl;ljhft[k;. bghWg;ngw;Wf; bfhz;l ehs; Kjy; r';f ,Ug;gpid rupghu;f;f KaYk;nghbjy;yhk;. r';f nkyhsu; jpU/rh/nfhghy; ghu;f;ftplhky; jl;of; fHpj;jjhft[k;. gpd;g[ r';f jPu;khdk; vz;/1 ehs; 28/06/2014d; go nkyhsu; jpU/rh/nfhghyplkpUe;J midj;J $t[sp bghWg;g[fSk; 16/08/2014y; mg;nghija fzf;fu; jpU/ fhkuh$u; vd;gtuplk; khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;L. mtu; bghWg;ngw;Wf; bfhz;l gpwF jhd; ,Ug;g[f; Fiwt[ fz;lwpag;gl;ljhft[k;. 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021bjuptpj;jpUe;jhYk;. epjpapHg;g[ Vw;gl;lij cupa Kiwapy; fz;fhzpf;f jtwpa tifapy;. ,e;j nky;KiwaPl;lhsu;fs; epjpapHg;g[w;F bghWg;ghfpd;whu;fs;/ 14. A mere reading of the above would clearly demonstrate how the petitioners have abdicated their responsibilities. Therefore, not only have they committed negligence but the said negligence is also willful. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere. 15. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 13.06.2025Index: Yes/NoInternet: yes/Nokan11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021ToThe Principal District Court cum Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Thiruvarur. 12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021P.T. ASHA.JkanC.R.P (PD) No.911 of 202113.06.202513/13

C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 20214.N.Ramanujam5.T-853Mannargudi Silk Handloom WeaversProduction & Sales Co-operative Society Limited,East Padmasalavar Street,Mannargudi Munsif & Town,Thiruvarur – 614 001.... Respondents(R5 impleaded vide Court order dated 20.03.2024 made in CMP.No.3641 of 2024 in CRP.No.911 of 2021)Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 26.02.2020 in Co-operative CMA.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court cum Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Thiruvarur confirming the recovery surcharge order passed by the 1st respondent in Tha.No.01/2018, Na.Ka.No.345/2017 A2 dated 28.01.2019.For Petitioners:Mrs. Ramadevi. P.T. For Respondent 1:Mr. D.GopalGovernment AdvocateFor Respondent 5:Mr. V.JeevagiridharanFor Respondents:No Appearance2 to 42/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021 ORDERThe petitioners before this Court are the elected Executive Committee members of the Mannargudi Silk Handloom Weavers Production and Sales Co-operative Society Limited. They seek to challenge the order passed by the Principal District cum Special Tribunal for Cooperative Cases, Thiruvarur in CMA.No.2 of 2019 in and by which the learned Judge had confirmed the recovery order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 28.01.2019. The brief facts which preceeds the filing of the above civil revision petition is herein below set out. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they had been elected as the Executive Committee members and had assumed charge in the year 2013. Prior to their assuming charge on 09.05.2013 the 2nd respondent who was the then Secretary of the Society had willfully committed the act of the reduction of the stock and misappropriation of amounts. The 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 20212nd respondent was working as a Manager in the aforementioned society and he was suspended on the ground that he had committed misconduct of reduction of stock from 19.05.2013 onwards. 3. On 16.08.2016 he was asked to handover charge to one Kamarajan. At that time the reduction of stock was noted. Thereafter, enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, hereinafter called the Act, was initiated against the 2nd respondent as well as the petitioners. In the Section 81 enquiry, the 2nd respondent was held solely responsible for the reduction of stock and misappropriation of the entire stock amount of Rs.14,64,702/-. The surcharge proceedings and liability was fixed upon the 2nd respondent who was in custody of the entire stock. However, the 1st respondent proceeded to fix liability upon the petitioners on the ground that they being Executive Committee members of the society they had failed to check the 2nd respondent and prevent him from misappropriating the funds, which is violative of bye laws Section 45 - B (X) and 46 of the 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021Societies Bye Laws.4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had preferred Cooperative CMA.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District cum Special Court for Cooperative Cases, Thiruvarur. The learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur also dismissed the petitioners' appeal and aggrieved by the same the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records. 6. The main argument that has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent's Society have not been able to establish the fact that there was a willful negligence on the side of the petitioners. It is only after the respondent Society is able to prove the willful negligence that they can mulct the petitioners with liability. 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 20217. The learned counsel would further argue that the Delinquent Officer is not directly under supervision of the petitioners and that there is an Audit Officer who is above them who is responsible for supervising the workman of the Cooperative Society. However, this Officer has not been made liable by the 1st respondent as well as the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur. The learned counsel would draw the attention of the Court to the language of Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Society Act. 8. Per contra Mr.D.Gopal, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent Society would draw the attention of the Court to the finding of the 1st respondent as well as the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur. A perusal of which would clearly indicate that the petitioners inspite of being put on notice about the activities of the 2nd respondent had failed to take action against him. Therefore, the order mulcting liability on the petitioners is very much 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021in order. There is no necessity to re-visit the same. 9. Heard the learned counsels on the either side.10. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the absence of proof of willful negligence, the authorities below had committed a grave error in mulcting the liability on the petitioners as well. The learned counsel would rely upon Section 87 of the Act which deals with surcharge proceedings. However, it is seen that Section 87 of the Act has been amended by Act 33 of 2022 and by virtue of this amendment the word “willful” has been deleted from Section 87. Therefore, after the amendment it would suffice if negligence is proved. 11. The 1st respondent in his order dated 28.01.2019 has observed as follows:“epu;thff;FGj; jPu;khdk; 01 ehs; 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 202126/07/2016 d;go jpU/rh/nfhghy;. Vd;gtuplkpUe;j bghWg;g[fis jpU ,uh/fhkuhrd; vd;gtuplk; khw;wpaij bjhlu;e;J 16/08/2016 njjpapy; gl;L nriyfis ,Ug;g[fis kl;Lk; xg;gilf;fg;gl;lJ bjhlu;ghft[k;. ,jpy; Fiwt[ Vw;gl;oUe;jij rk;ke;jg;gl;l jpU ,uh/ fhkuhrd; vd;gtu; Fwpg;gpl;L jpU rh/nfhghy; vd;gtuplk; ifbahg;gk; bgw;Ws;sij epu;thff;FG cWg;gpdu;fs; ftdj;jpy; bfhs;shkYk;. mij r';f epu;thfj; jug;gpy; cWjp bra;J gjpt[ bra;ahkYk;. cldoahf ,Ug;g[Fiwit tR{y; bra;a rk;ke;jg;gl;l jpU rh/nfhghy; kPJ rl;lg;g{u;t eltof;if vLf;fhkYk;. ,ju nfhuhght[ ,Ug;g[ kw;Wk; buhf;f ifapUg;g[ jpU rh/nfhghy; xg;gilf;fhjij ftdj;jpy; bfhs;shkYk; ,Ue;Js;sJ/ 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 202112. This statement clearly shows that despite being put on notice about the misconduct of the 2nd respondent the petitioners have chosen to turn a blind eye to the same. Therefore, there is a negligence on their part. 13. Further, the Principal District Judge in the Judgement in CMA.No.2 of 2019 detailed the responsibilities of the Executive Committee. The learned Judge has observed as follows:“17.epu;thff; FGtpdu;fspd; flikfshtJ r';f gzpahsu;fspd; gzpfs; ruptu nkw;bfhs;sg;gLfpwjh vd;gij nkw;ghu;it bra;J. fz;fhzpf;Fk; bghWg;gpid cs;slf;fpaJ kw;Wk; r';fj;jpd; KG tut[ bryt[ gupkhw;w';fis KGikahf fz;fhzpf;Fk; bghWg;g[ cs;slf;fpajhFk;/ 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021,t;tHf;fpy;. epu;thff; FG cWg;gpdu;fs; Mfpa nky;KiwaPl;lhsu;fs; j';fsJ tpsf;fj;jpy;. 09/05/2013 Mk; njjp r';fk; bjhlu;ghd bghWg;g[fisa[k;. jiytu;. cgjiytu; kw;Wk; ,af;Fdu;fs; bghWg;g[fis bgw;Wf;bfhz;lhu;fs; vd;Wk;. mt;thW bgw;Wf;bfhz;l midj;J bghWg;g[fisa[k; r';fj;jpd; nkyhsu; rh/nfhghy; vd;gtuplk; xg;gilj;J tpl;ljhft[k;. bghWg;ngw;Wf; bfhz;l ehs; Kjy; r';f ,Ug;gpid rupghu;f;f KaYk;nghbjy;yhk;. r';f nkyhsu; jpU/rh/nfhghy; ghu;f;ftplhky; jl;of; fHpj;jjhft[k;. gpd;g[ r';f jPu;khdk; vz;/1 ehs; 28/06/2014d; go nkyhsu; jpU/rh/nfhghyplkpUe;J midj;J $t[sp bghWg;g[fSk; 16/08/2014y; mg;nghija fzf;fu; jpU/ fhkuh$u; vd;gtuplk; khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;L. mtu; bghWg;ngw;Wf; bfhz;l gpwF jhd; ,Ug;g[f; Fiwt[ fz;lwpag;gl;ljhft[k;. 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021bjuptpj;jpUe;jhYk;. epjpapHg;g[ Vw;gl;lij cupa Kiwapy; fz;fhzpf;f jtwpa tifapy;. ,e;j nky;KiwaPl;lhsu;fs; epjpapHg;g[w;F bghWg;ghfpd;whu;fs;/ 14. A mere reading of the above would clearly demonstrate how the petitioners have abdicated their responsibilities. Therefore, not only have they committed negligence but the said negligence is also willful. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere. 15. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 13.06.2025Index: Yes/NoInternet: yes/Nokan11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021ToThe Principal District Court cum Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Thiruvarur. 12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.911 of 2021P.T. ASHA.JkanC.R.P (PD) No.911 of 202113.06.202513/13