Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7] In Shriram Raut (supra), this Court, on the basis of evidence placed on record by the petitioners in the course of proceedings under Section 91 of the MCS Act, had held that a manager of a clothes section of the society could not be said to be a person, who has taken any part in the organization or management of the society and such person could not be regarded as the officer of the society. This was after evidence had been led by such person in the proceedings under Section 91 of the MCS Act and the decision of the Registrar had been tested in Appellate/Revisional Jurisdiction before the prescribed authorities under the MCS Act. The ruling is in the Dinesh Sherla 1-wp-6774-15-G context of facts as established in the course of proceedings before the authorities.

distinguishable at least at this stage. Because, unlike the position in the present petitions, the petitioner in the said petitions, had placed relevant evidence before the authorities to demonstrate that he was not covered under the provisions of Sections 88 or 91 of the MCS Act. In this case, the petitioners, are yet to produce such material, if any, before the Authorised Officer and such material is yet to be examined by the Authorised Officer and thereafter the Appellant/Revisional Authorities under the MCS Act. These petitions, in that sense are quite premature and possibly intended to delay or stall the enquireis under Section 88 of the MCS Act. 14] Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange - (2017) 5 SCC 623 in support of their submissions that they are only employees and not the officers of the society. Again, as noted earlier, in this case, there is serious dispute as to the position and nature of the duties of each of the petitioners. Unless the position of the petitioners is determined on the basis of evidence, which the petitioners are granted liberty to Dinesh Sherla 1-wp-6774-15-G produce before the Autorised Officer, it is premature to hold that the petitioners are not persons who have taken part in the organization or management of the society or who are not Officers of the Society. In any case, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prabhakar Bhadange (supra) was whether the employees of the Societies can raise dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act, which is directly not the issue involved in the present case. 15] In matters of this nature and in the light of directions of the Division Bench, it will not be appropriate to entertain any piecemeal challenges. If, ultimately, any adverse orders are made against the petitioners, the petitioners, undoubtedly, will have liberty to question those decisions by availing of alternate remedies available under the MCS Act. In such proceedings, needless to add, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise the issue of coverage/jurisdiction, but this time supported by the material which they may have produced on record in the course of enquiry. 16] Accordingly, all these petitions are dismissed. However, it is clarified that this dismissal is really not on merits of the matter. The petitioners are granted liberty to lead evidence before the Authorised Dinesh Sherla 1-wp-6774-15-G Officer on all issues, including on the issue as to their coverage under Section 88 of the MCS Act. The Authorised Officer is directed to decide all issues, including the issue of coverage in the light of such evidence without being influenced by any observations in the impugned orders or for that matter the present order. 17] It is once again made clear that all contentions of all parties in this regard are kept open for decision by the Authorised Officer in the proceedings under Section 88 of MCS Act.