Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Ch.Vijaya Venkata Subba Raju And ... vs The A.P. Co-Operative Tribunal, ... on 19 November, 2014

Reddy Appalnaidu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 December, 2024

34.3 Therefore, the facts in M. Venkata Ramana's case, do not support the case of the Writ Petitioners. In the present case, the person who has no authority under law had deceptively and stealthily registered the Sale Deeds ostensibly projecting himself to be having the legal authority to transfer the title from the Society to the Vendees. The President of Respondent No.3 Society would get the legal authority to register a Sale Deed on behalf of the Society only when the procedures contemplated under law are followed and thereby the necessary approvals are given by the : a) Managing Committee; b) Ratified by the General Body; and c) Permission granted by the Government and Functional Registrar. Since the Writ Petitioners have failed to prove that all such Resolutions, approvals and sanctions have been granted to Sri Matsa Santa Rao, he as such does not have the authority to register the Sale Deeds on behalf of the Society in favour of the Writ Petitioners herein.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nadipudi Esward Rao, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 December, 2024

34.3 Therefore, the facts in M. Venkata Ramana's case, do not support the case of the Writ Petitioners. In the present case, the person who has no authority under law had deceptively and stealthily registered the Sale Deeds ostensibly projecting himself to be having the legal authority to transfer the title from the Society to the Vendees. The President of Respondent No.3 Society would get the legal authority to register a Sale Deed on behalf of the Society only when the procedures contemplated under law are followed and thereby the necessary approvals are given by the : a) Managing Committee; b) Ratified by the General Body; and c) Permission granted by the Government and Functional Registrar. Since the Writ Petitioners have failed to prove that all such Resolutions, approvals and sanctions have been granted to Sri Matsa Santa Rao, he as such does not have the authority to register the Sale Deeds on behalf of the Society in favour of the Writ Petitioners herein.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arangi Murali Krishna vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... on 27 December, 2024

34.3 Therefore, the facts in M. Venkata Ramana's case, do not support the case of the Writ Petitioners. In the present case, the person who has no authority under law had deceptively and stealthily registered the Sale Deeds ostensibly projecting himself to be having the legal authority to transfer the title from the Society to the Vendees. The President of Respondent No.3 Society would get the legal authority to register a Sale Deed on behalf of the Society only when the procedures contemplated under law are followed and thereby the necessary approvals are given by the : a) Managing Committee; b) Ratified by the General Body; and c) Permission granted by the Government and Functional Registrar. Since the Writ Petitioners have failed to prove that all such Resolutions, approvals and sanctions have been granted to Sri Matsa Santa Rao, he as such does not have the authority to register the Sale Deeds on behalf of the Society in favour of the Writ Petitioners herein.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maggi Srinivasa Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 December, 2024

34.3 Therefore, the facts in M. Venkata Ramana's case, do not support the case of the Writ Petitioners. In the present case, the person who has no authority under law had deceptively and stealthily registered the Sale Deeds ostensibly projecting himself to be having the legal authority to transfer the title from the Society to the Vendees. The President of Respondent No.3 Society would get the legal authority to register a Sale Deed on behalf of the Society only when the procedures contemplated under law are followed and thereby the necessary approvals are given by the : a) Managing Committee; b) Ratified by the General Body; and c) Permission granted by the Government and Functional Registrar. Since the Writ Petitioners have failed to prove that all such Resolutions, approvals and sanctions have been granted to Sri Matsa Santa Rao, he as such does not have the authority to register the Sale Deeds on behalf of the Society in favour of the Writ Petitioners herein.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lanka Tirupathi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... on 27 December, 2024

34.3 Therefore, the facts in M. Venkata Ramana's case, do not support the case of the Writ Petitioners. In the present case, the person who has no authority under law had deceptively and stealthily registered the Sale Deeds ostensibly projecting himself to be having the legal authority to transfer the title from the Society to the Vendees. The President of Respondent No.3 Society would get the legal authority to register a Sale Deed on behalf of the Society only when the procedures contemplated under law are followed and thereby the necessary approvals are given by the : a) Managing Committee; b) Ratified by the General Body; and c) Permission granted by the Government and Functional Registrar. Since the Writ Petitioners have failed to prove that all such Resolutions, approvals and sanctions have been granted to Sri Matsa Santa Rao, he as such does not have the authority to register the Sale Deeds on behalf of the Society in favour of the Writ Petitioners herein.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reddy Gowrayya S/O. Redy Suryanarayana vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 December, 2024

34.3 Therefore, the facts in M. Venkata Ramana's case, do not support the case of the Writ Petitioners. In the present case, the person who has no authority under law had deceptively and stealthily registered the Sale Deeds ostensibly projecting himself to be having the legal authority to transfer the title from the Society to the Vendees. The President of Respondent No.3 Society would get the legal authority to register a Sale Deed on behalf of the Society only when the procedures contemplated under law are followed and thereby the necessary approvals are given by the : a) Managing Committee; b) Ratified by the General Body; and c) Permission granted by the Government and Functional Registrar. Since the Writ Petitioners have failed to prove that all such Resolutions, approvals and sanctions have been granted to Sri Matsa Santa Rao, he as such does not have the authority to register the Sale Deeds on behalf of the Society in favour of the Writ Petitioners herein.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reddy Venkata Ramana, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 December, 2024

34.3 Therefore, the facts in M. Venkata Ramana's case, do not support the case of the Writ Petitioners. In the present case, the person who has no authority under law had deceptively and stealthily registered the Sale Deeds ostensibly projecting himself to be having the legal authority to transfer the title from the Society to the Vendees. The President of Respondent No.3 Society would get the legal authority to register a Sale Deed on behalf of the Society only when the procedures contemplated under law are followed and thereby the necessary approvals are given by the : a) Managing Committee; b) Ratified by the General Body; and c) Permission granted by the Government and Functional Registrar. Since the Writ Petitioners have failed to prove that all such Resolutions, approvals and sanctions have been granted to Sri Matsa Santa Rao, he as such does not have the authority to register the Sale Deeds on behalf of the Society in favour of the Writ Petitioners herein.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vegi Veera Venkata Subrahmanyam, vs The State Of A.P., Repby Its Prl. ... on 27 January, 2020

The dispute herein pertains to division of Plot V-B into three equal parts and transfer of the same in favour of the petitioners herein without following the Rules and Regulations and without the consent to the Board Members of the 4th respondent society. The division of the Plot V-B into three parts and registration of the same in favour of the petitioners through registered sale deeds do not form part of the business of the society and the same cannot be termed as one touching the business of the society within the meaning of 7 MGR, J W.P.No.13818 of 2016 Section 61 (1) of the Act. The word 'business' cannot be construed so as to include any illegal transaction of the society or its members purporting to act as members of the society violating any statutory provisions and entering into a transaction, when such transaction cannot be treated as part of business of the society. Since the dispute involved herein is not one touching the constitution, management or the business of the society, and the dispute is outside the purview of Section 61 of the Act, the 2nd respondent- Deputy Registrar has no power or authority to entertain the dispute and hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd respondent-Deputy Registrar has no authority to entertain the dispute is sustainable in law in view of the decision of this court in the case of M. Venkata Ramana and another v. A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein it is held as follows:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - M G Rao - Full Document
1