Authority: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

Order Date: 09 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Southern Railway Employees Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd., Dindigul (the "Society").
  • Respondents: Various former office‑bearers – M. Baskaran, C. Senthilkumar, N. Jeyachandran, S. Balan – and the Deputy Registrar of Co‑operative Societies, Dindigul.
  • Civil Revision Petition numbers: C.R.P.(MD) Nos. 1581, 1582, 1583 of 2024.
  • Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Society sought to set aside orders dated 12‑03‑2024 passed by the Co‑operative Appellate Tribunal, Dindigul (CMA(CS). No. 2/2022, No. 12/2021, No. 13/2021).
  • Allegations: Respondents, while serving as President, Vice‑President, In‑charge Secretaries, incurred expenditures without prior permission from the competent authority, violating a departmental circular. Expenditures included legal fees, calendar printing, T‑shirts, store painting, leather bags, etc., allegedly causing financial loss.
  • Procedural background: An enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act was conducted; surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 87. Respondents appealed under Section 152 before the Co‑operative Tribunal, which partly allowed the appeals.
  • Petitioners argued the Tribunal erred by not appreciating the mandatory prior‑permission requirement; respondents contended the expenditures were approved by a board resolution and no personal enrichment occurred, thus no ground for surcharge.

Final Outcome

  • The Court examined the rival submissions and the record.
  • It held that the expenditures were incurred for legitimate society purposes, were ratified by board resolutions, and there was no allegation of misappropriation or personal enrichment.
  • The Court found that mere failure to obtain prior permission does not, by itself, constitute a ground for surcharge under Section 87.
  • Consequently, the Civil Revision Petitions (C.R.P. Nos. 1581‑1583) are dismissed.
  • No costs awarded; the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Topics: Cooperative Governance, Court Decision