Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (2.23 seconds)
Documents citing The Talmakiwadi Co-Operative Housing ... vs The Divisional Joint Registrar, ... on 9 November, 1999

St. Anthony'S Co-Operative Society ... vs The Secretary (Co-Operation And ... on 18 August, 2000

19. One of the submissions which was urged on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was in regard to the fact that in delivering the Judgment in the Talmakiwadi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. case (supra) the learned Single Judge did not notice the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Karvenagar Sahakari Griha Rahana Sanstha Maryadit, 1989 Bom. 392. The learned Counsel is correct in urging that submission in the sense that the Judgment of a Division Bench was not cited before the Learned Single Judge.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

The Zoroastrian Radih Society vs Mrs. Pervin Nariman Jogina & Anr. on 19 January, 2001

This submission is made in view of the submission of Mr, Bharucha that clause 11 of the agreement for sale laid down that the flat purchaser had agreed that at all times the flat will be used only for the residence of Parsl/IraniZoroastrians and will not be sold or let to a person other than Parsi Zoroastrians. The submissions of Mr. Vashi Is that the particular clause and all such provisions of the agreement are contrary to the model agreement as also the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Mr. Vashl relies upon ajudgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (A.V. Savant. J. as he then was in this Court) in the case of The Talmakiwadi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies,'. In that case also the relevant bye-law No. 7 of the Society provided that all members have to belong to the Kanara Saraswat community. The Divisional Joint Registrar had directed the Society to amend the bye-laws to bring them inconsonance with the model bye-laws. That direction was challenged by the Society. Amongst others, the validity of the bye-law of the Society was considered by the learned Judge on the touch-stone of sections 22 and 23 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and thereafter the learned Judge held that the said bye-law was liable to be struck down as ultra vires the above-referred provisions of the Statute. The learned Judge relied upon a large number of judgments in support of the conclusion arrived at including a detailed judgment of a learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court (M. S. Parikh, J.) in the case of Zoroastrtan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. u. District Registrar, Co-op. Societies (Urban), 2.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

The Chairpeson/Secretary, St. ... vs Mr. Kenneth Paul And Ors on 3 May, 2019

16. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in contrast, placed reliance upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Bandra Owners Court Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Ors.3, wherein after referring to the aforesaid judgment in the case of Harish Commercial (supra), the following observations were made.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document

Vithalnagar Co-Operative Housing ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 March, 2016

4 and 5, is not contained therein. The circumstance that the gist of the proposed action is contained in the notice, was not regarded as compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 29 of the said Rules in the case of Aderabad Co-operative Housing Society Limited (supra). In paragraph 37 referred to above, it has been observed that the agenda has not been shown in the notice dated 27 December 2004, though it sets out the case of the petitioner society against the respondent nos. 3 and 4 for their expulsion on merits. Further, in the said case, the agenda incorporating the resolution was served upon the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the said case only on 30 January 2005, when in fact, the special general body meeting was scheduled to be held on 6 February 2005.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

M/S. Anish Enterprises vs Mrs. Beena Ashok Nair Chief Promoter Of ... on 12 August, 2025

8. Mr. Shah further contended that the failure of the promoter to discharge his statutory obligation under MOFA cannot now be used as a ground to defeat the rights of the flat purchasers, who have taken steps in good faith to protect their interest. He submitted that this Court has, in a recent judgment in Writ Petition No. 4704 of 2025 (Rameshwar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. vs. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors.), decided on 9th May 2025, examined similar contentions and rejected the challenge raised by the developer. He drew attention to paragraphs 24 to 26 of the said judgment, wherein the Court observed as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A B Borkar - Full Document

Dilip Bobde Patil vs M/S. Laksons Inida Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 14 October, 2025

9. He further submitted that the concept of nominal membership is now obsolete in the context of cooperative housing societies after the insertion of Chapter XIII-B in the MCS Act. He pointed out that other buildings in respondent No.2's layout have already formed independent societies, and the same principle must apply here. He therefore urged that the impugned order be 5 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:40:05 ::: wp-7830-2022.doc quashed. He relied on the decision of this Court in Rameshwar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Writ Petition No. 4704 of 2025 decided on 9 May 2025).
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A B Borkar - Full Document

Vilas Vishnu Jadhav And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 15 July, 2024

Nothing has been pointed out from the Government Resolution dated 4 th July, 2019 which would deviate from the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge in Kamgar Swa Sadan Housing Society Ltd. (supra) in the context of the Government Resolution dated 3 rd January, 2009 and can be considered as mandatory. The Coordinate Bench has already held that the Government Resolution of 3rd January, 2009 is directory as no consequence for non-compliance has been pointed out and thus, Section 79A (3) of the MCS Act is not attracted. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S U Deshmukh - Full Document
1   2 Next