Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.80 seconds)The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912
The Tamil Nadu Forest Department Staff ... vs P. Dhanabal And The Deputy Commissioner ... on 11 April, 2002
Likewise, the judgment of P.Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) in The Management of Madras Atomic Power Project Employees' Consumers (Co-operative Stores Limited, Kalpakkam rep. by its Special Officer v. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal) Madras [2000 (III) CTC 738 = 2000 (2) LLJ 1451] holding that Section 90 of the 1983 Act is not available for employees of Co-operative Societies against the orders of termination has been correctly decided."
Somasundaram vs Liyakat Ali And Another on 14 February, 1996
(d) The decision in Somasundaram v. Liyakat Ali [1997 (1) CTC 4 = 1998 (2) LLJ 719] may not be a good law. The employees therein filed a Civil Suit regarding promotion issue. As remedy for the aggrieved parties in that case are available either under Section 153 or by an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they could not have gone before the Civil Court. Therefore, the bar under Section 156 of the Co-operative Societies Act as well as the implied ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court by the provisions of the I.D. Act will directly apply and the suit is barred.
K. Radhakrishnan vs The Additional Registrar (Marketing, ... on 10 March, 2000
(e) The decision of P. Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) in K. Radhakrishnan v. Additional Registrar [2000 (ii) CTC 147] upholding the right of revision under Section 153 has laid the correct position of law.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gujarat State Co-Operative Land ... vs P.R. Mankad And Ors. on 23 January, 1979
11. While resolving the question referred to in view of the conflict of views, the Division Bench has taken into consideration section 73 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (old Act) and section 90 of the New Act, 1983 and also the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of N.S. Madhava Rao and others v. D.V.K. Surya Rao and others [AIR 1954 Madras 103], South Arcot Co-operative Motor Transport Society Ltd. (for ex-servicemen) Devanam-Pattinam, Cuddalore v. Syed Batcha and others [AIR 1961 Madras 217], and that of the Supreme Court in the cases of Deccan Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain [1969 (1) SCR 887], Coop. Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal [1969 (2) SCC 43], Gujarat State Coop. Land Development Bank v. P.R. Mankad [1979 (3) SCC 123], U.P. Coop. Cane Union Federation Ltd. v. Liladhar [1980 Supp SCC 437], Allahabad District Cooperative Ltd. v. Hanuman Dutt Tewari [1981 (4) SCC 431], R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Coop. Marketing Federation Ltd. [1997 (5) SCC 125], Yogendra Prasad v. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 720], Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Special Secretary to Government of Haryana Corporation [2006 (12) SCC 404], Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. [2007 (9) SCC 109], and has summarized its proposition as follows :
U.P. Co-Operative Cane Union ... vs Liladhar & Others on 27 August, 1980
11. While resolving the question referred to in view of the conflict of views, the Division Bench has taken into consideration section 73 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (old Act) and section 90 of the New Act, 1983 and also the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of N.S. Madhava Rao and others v. D.V.K. Surya Rao and others [AIR 1954 Madras 103], South Arcot Co-operative Motor Transport Society Ltd. (for ex-servicemen) Devanam-Pattinam, Cuddalore v. Syed Batcha and others [AIR 1961 Madras 217], and that of the Supreme Court in the cases of Deccan Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain [1969 (1) SCR 887], Coop. Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal [1969 (2) SCC 43], Gujarat State Coop. Land Development Bank v. P.R. Mankad [1979 (3) SCC 123], U.P. Coop. Cane Union Federation Ltd. v. Liladhar [1980 Supp SCC 437], Allahabad District Cooperative Ltd. v. Hanuman Dutt Tewari [1981 (4) SCC 431], R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Coop. Marketing Federation Ltd. [1997 (5) SCC 125], Yogendra Prasad v. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 720], Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Special Secretary to Government of Haryana Corporation [2006 (12) SCC 404], Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. [2007 (9) SCC 109], and has summarized its proposition as follows :
Allahabad District Cooperative ... vs Hanuman Dutt Tewari on 29 July, 1981
11. While resolving the question referred to in view of the conflict of views, the Division Bench has taken into consideration section 73 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (old Act) and section 90 of the New Act, 1983 and also the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of N.S. Madhava Rao and others v. D.V.K. Surya Rao and others [AIR 1954 Madras 103], South Arcot Co-operative Motor Transport Society Ltd. (for ex-servicemen) Devanam-Pattinam, Cuddalore v. Syed Batcha and others [AIR 1961 Madras 217], and that of the Supreme Court in the cases of Deccan Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain [1969 (1) SCR 887], Coop. Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal [1969 (2) SCC 43], Gujarat State Coop. Land Development Bank v. P.R. Mankad [1979 (3) SCC 123], U.P. Coop. Cane Union Federation Ltd. v. Liladhar [1980 Supp SCC 437], Allahabad District Cooperative Ltd. v. Hanuman Dutt Tewari [1981 (4) SCC 431], R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Coop. Marketing Federation Ltd. [1997 (5) SCC 125], Yogendra Prasad v. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 720], Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Special Secretary to Government of Haryana Corporation [2006 (12) SCC 404], Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. [2007 (9) SCC 109], and has summarized its proposition as follows :
The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills ... vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of Haryana ... on 10 November, 2006
11. While resolving the question referred to in view of the conflict of views, the Division Bench has taken into consideration section 73 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (old Act) and section 90 of the New Act, 1983 and also the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of N.S. Madhava Rao and others v. D.V.K. Surya Rao and others [AIR 1954 Madras 103], South Arcot Co-operative Motor Transport Society Ltd. (for ex-servicemen) Devanam-Pattinam, Cuddalore v. Syed Batcha and others [AIR 1961 Madras 217], and that of the Supreme Court in the cases of Deccan Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain [1969 (1) SCR 887], Coop. Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal [1969 (2) SCC 43], Gujarat State Coop. Land Development Bank v. P.R. Mankad [1979 (3) SCC 123], U.P. Coop. Cane Union Federation Ltd. v. Liladhar [1980 Supp SCC 437], Allahabad District Cooperative Ltd. v. Hanuman Dutt Tewari [1981 (4) SCC 431], R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Coop. Marketing Federation Ltd. [1997 (5) SCC 125], Yogendra Prasad v. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 720], Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Special Secretary to Government of Haryana Corporation [2006 (12) SCC 404], Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. [2007 (9) SCC 109], and has summarized its proposition as follows :