Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Bhaskar Laxman Rane vs Shri Gurudev Nityanand Co-Operative ... on 18 June, 1998

H.P. State Forest Corporation And Anr. vs Kusal Singh And Ors. on 14 May, 2007

With the greatest respect the learned Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, I am inclined to think that the observations of the Bench in Laxman's (supra) go (contrary to the; decision of the Supreme Court in Ambica Mills (supra), and to the trend of judicial precedents' on the point in question. In deciding the case of Laxman in the way the; Madhya Pradesh High Court did, they followed their own earlier Division Bench judgment which was contrary to the view of the Punjab High Court.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - R Sharma - Full Document

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

19] The material on record, does indicate that the aforesaid show cause notice dated 1 August 2007 was received by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 on 4 August 2007. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Bhaskar Rane (supra), Mr. 11/21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:17:43 ::: skc J-WP-1557-15.doc Narichania contended that the services of such notice containing the gist of the proposed action served upon the respondent nos. 4 and 5 more than one month prior to the date fixed for the special general body fixed on 8 September 2007 constitutes compliance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 29 of the said Rules. Mr. Narichania, emphasized that the notice is prescribed by Rule 29 of the said Rules contemplates notice to the member or members against whom resolution for expulsion is proposed to be passed at least one month prior to the date of the meeting.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Baburao L. Patil And Others vs Dashrath R. Patil & Others on 11 August, 1998

8. As per the law laid down by this Court in K.V. Sundaram and another v. Raj Rajeshwari Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and others, 1980 Mh.L.J. 4 and the view taken by another Division Bench (to which I am a party) ; on 18th/19th June 1998 in Writ Petition No. 3128 of 1990 in Bhaskar Laxman Rane v. Gurudev Nityanand Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and others, , it is clear that the notice of expulsion must call upon the member concerned to show cause to the general body of the members against the proposed expulsion. The procedure contemplated by section 35 is not mechanical. It is not an empty formality. The material on the basis of which the show cause notice is issued and reply given by the member has to be considered by the general body before arriving at a decision that member has to be expelled. Such a decision can be reached only by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the a members entitled to vote who are present in the general body meeting. The Registrar who has to accord his approval under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 35 is also expected to hold a proper enquiry regarding the procedure that was adopted by the society while passing the resolution for expulsion.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak ... vs State Of Maharashtra And 64 Ors. on 23 August, 2007

7. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Rane (supra) has clearly held that notice of meeting contemplated by Rule 29 in the matter of expulsion of member referable to Section 35 of the Act had to be served on the member against whom resolution was proposed to be passed at least one month prior to the date of the meeting. A meeting held earlier to such a period and the business recorded therein would be illegal and bad in law.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - S Kumar - Full Document

Aderabad Co-Operative Housing Society ... vs Div. Jt. Registrar, Co-Operative ... on 31 July, 2007

28. Similarly in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Rane v. Shri Gurudev Nityanand Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Worli, Bombay and Ors. 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 127, it has been held that merits of the case had to be considered by the Registrar against the member who is sought to be expelled. In that case certain concessions granted to the member prior to the notice for claiming certain amount from him were not considered. The Registrar mechanically considered the notice of the Society only claiming amounts from the member, for failure of payment of which he was sought to be expelled under Section 35 of the MCS Act. The approval granted by the Registrar was set aside on the ground that the member had a valid defence under earlier concessions granted to him and could not be expelled without considering those concessions.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - R Dalvi - Full Document
1