Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (2.21 seconds)
Documents citing M.S. Madhava Rao And Ors. vs D.V.K. Surya Rao, Member Of The ... on 2 April, 1953

The Secretary Of The North Arcot ... vs Philo Josephine on 15 December, 1972

The Full Bench in Madhava Rao v. Surya Rao expressed its view that in order to find out the business of the Society one has to look into the provisions of the Act and the rules and by-laws framed by the Society and that all that is permitted to be done by the by-laws which are intra vires of the Act, by the provisions of the Act and the rules must be deemed to be the business of the Society. Rule 85 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 provides that no society shall appoint any person as its paid employee in any category of service without obtaining from him security in such form and according to such standard as the Registrar may fix for such category of service under the Society or under the class of Societies to which it belongs. The receipt of security deposits from paid employees and naturally the refund of such deposits, even though the rule does not mention about the refund of security deposits, would be the business of the Society authorised by the rules of the Act. In this view, there is no escape from the conclusion that the return of security deposit is a dispute touching the business of the Society and therefore, within the purview of Section 73 of the Act. The suit is, therefore not maintainable. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner will have to be accepted and this petition allowed.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

P. Shanmugam vs The Secretary, Co-Operative Fire And ... on 24 September, 1971

15. On a reading of Section 73 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act it is clear that that Section is broader based than the old Section 51 of the Madras Act VI of 1932. In the old Section 51, we do not have the word "management" included; but in the present Section 73, both "touching the business of the society" and "management" have been included. It. cannot be taken, as I have already said, that the decision rendered by the Madras Full Bench in Madhava Rao v. Surya Rao , has been overruled or dissented from in any of the Supreme Court decisions cited above. In ray opinion the facts of the case can be clearly taken as coming under the clause either " touching the business of the society " or "management" of the society. In this view and I following the Full Bench decision of this Court, it is clear that the respondent has rightly approached the Registrar in his claim for arrears of salary. It cannot be said that the Registrar is powerless under the provisions of the Act or Rules or the bye laws of the society from giving relief to the past officer in the matter of his claim for arrears of salary.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

R.Sakkarapani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 August, 2018

85. The learned Advocate General has rightly argued that dispute touching the constitution of the board or management or the business of the registered society, contemplated in Section 90 of the 1983 Act necessarily includes dispute in relation to election of a member, and may be referred to the Registrar. There can be no dispute with the proposition laid down by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in N.S.Madhava Rao and others v. D.V.K. Surya Rao and others, reported in AIR 1954 Madras 103 that the expression http://www.judis.nic.in (80) “touching the business of the society” might include election related disputes.
Madras High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 2 - P T Asha - Full Document

Shyamlal vs Upbhokta Sahakari Samiti And Anr. on 11 August, 1980

13. The decisions of G. I. P. Rly. Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd's case (ATR 1943 Bom 341), M. S. Madhava Rao v. D. V. K. Surya Rao, (AIR 1954 Mad 103) (FB), Co-operative Milk Societies Union Ltd. v. State, (AIR 1958 Cal 373), Farkhundali Nannhey v. V. B. Potdar, (AIR 1962 Bom 162) (FB) and Deccan Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand, (AIR 1969 SC 1320) were noticed in Co-op. Cr. Bank v. Ind. Tri. Hyderabad AIR 1970 SC 245. In that case, while examining Section 61 of the Andhra Pra-desh Co-op. Societies Act (No. XII of 1964), it was observed as under:--
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gujarat State Co-Operative Land ... vs Labour Court, Rajkot (P.R. Mankad) And ... on 25 August, 1967

"In Madhava Rao v. Surya Rao [A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 1(3] (vide supra) a Full Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the words 'touching the business of a society' must be given their full import and that the dispute referred to in S. 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, need not directly arise out of the business of the society, but it is enough if it should have reference or relation to or concern with its business.
Gujarat High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Indian Medical Practitioners vs Dr.R.B.Ramamoorthy on 21 July, 2014

(ii) In AIR 1954 Madras page 103 (Full Bench) (M.S.Madhava Rao and others v. D.V.K.Surya Rao), wherein it was held that all matters comprised in them or are incidental to or necessary for carrying out those matters must be deemed to be the business of the corporation. The power of the corporation is derived from these three sources, and so long as its activity is within those powers, it cannot be questioned as being invalid. A dispute relating therefore to election would undoubtedly be a dispute concerning or relating to the business of the society. Para-8 and 16 are extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

R.Sakkarapani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 August, 2018

85. The learned Advocate General has rightly argued that dispute touching the constitution of the board or management or the business of the registered society, contemplated in Section 90 of the 1983 Act necessarily includes dispute in relation to election of a member, and may be referred to the Registrar. There can be no dispute with the proposition laid down by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in N.S.Madhava Rao and others v. D.V.K. Surya Rao and others, reported in AIR 1954 Madras 103 that the expression touching the business of the society might include election related disputes.
Madras High Court Cites 107 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Madan Mohan Sen Gupta And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 30 March, 1965

In aid of the said contention two Madras decisions were oited namely, the Full Bench decision in the oase of Madhava Rao v. Surya Rao (FB) and the case of Lakshmiah v. S.P.T. C. M. Society Ltd. , Mr. Chat terjee referred to the well-known decision of the Judicial Committee in Secy, of State v. Mask and Co. which I might dismiss at once, being not relevant to the present discussion. Mr. Dutt, on the other hand, points out on behalf of the petitioners, that the learned Government Pleader has argued against the stand taken by their clients stated in the affidavit. Moreover the said Madras decisions arc distinguishable being based on different sets of facts. One of them, though touches the election of the Directors, the section is staled to be based on the Central Act though registered with the State enactment.
Calcutta High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next