Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The petitioners, therefore, pray that both the impugned orders be set aside and the Dispute No. 16 of 2007, pending before the Cooperative Court be dismissed for being untenable in law.

12. Learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 5, as well as Shri More, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 and Shri Patil, learned Advocate for respondents 3 and 4, support the impugned order.

13. Contention of Shri More and Shri Patil, learned Advocates is that the dispute is only with regard to the legality of the meeting that was convened on 12.8.2007. If the meeting is held to be illegal, the business transacted in the said meeting would be non-est. Whether a meeting has been properly convened or not is for the Cooperative Court to decide under Section 91 of the MCS Act. It is therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.

registering the society only for the reason that the petitioner is registered under the BPT Act. I do not find that the Registrar has initiated any proceedings for reasons covered by Section 21A.

17. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Mahalaxmi Railway Karmachari Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Limited Vs. Anil Wamanrao Gawande and others [2002 (Suppl)(2) BCR 668].

In this judgment the issue of expulsion of members under Section 35 of the MCS Act was considered. Considering the proviso to Section 35(1) as well the proviso to Section 35(2), this Court concluded that no resolution would be effective unless it is approved by the Registrar. In the instant case, the legality of the meeting convened on 12.8.2007 has been questioned in the dispute filed by respondent No.2. Same is, therefore, not excluded from the ambit of Section 91 of the MCS Act. The judgment of this Court in the case of Mahalaxmi (supra) would not be applicable to this case.