Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Mahim Causeway Macchimar Co-Operative ... vs Vasant Rambhau Tare And Ors. on 1 September, 2004
cites
Section 91 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
I.R. Hingorani vs Pravinchandra Kantilal Shah And Ors. on 4 May, 1972
21. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on I. R. Hingorani v. Pravinchandra Kant Hal Shah and Ors. (supra) and Kapurchand Jivraj Jain since deceased by heirs Samtaben and Ors., v. Shri Datta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Amalner and Ors., in our view has no relevance whatsoever to the facts of the present case. Firstly, in the aforesaid judgments what was considered was provisions of Section 91 of the said Act. The provisions of Section 91 deal with those disputes which are required to be resolved by a co-operative Court under Section 91 of the said Act. The provisions of Section 91 of the said Act contemplates as a condition precedent a kind of dispute to be resolved between various categories of people, namely, member and member, member and the society, member or a past member, member or a person claiming through a member. Thus, the provisions of Section 91 contemplates a condition precedent to the existence of a dispute of a type and character prescribed thereunder. The provisions of Section 91 therefore can apply only if there is an existence of a dispute of a kind of the category which is stipulated therein. In the light of the provisions of the said section, it was held by the Apex Court as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court that unless at the time of cause of action i.e. if at the time of occurring of the dispute it is not between the categories of the persons so specified under Section 91 of the Act then the Co-operative Court shall have no jurisdiction. In our opinion, such condition precedent does not exist under the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act. The provisions of Section 23 merely provide a remedial section for expulsion or refusal of a membership of the society. Therefore, a person who seeks to join a proposed co-operative housing society at its formation stage is treated as a member, under Section 2(19) and refusal of such an application would also fall under Section 23 of the said Act providing remedy to approach the Registrar for redressal of his grievance.
President, Nagarpalika Prathamik ... vs Ramchandra Damodar Umalkar And Ors. on 2 December, 1966
22. The next judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of President, Nagarpalica Prathamik Shala Shikshak Servants Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. Ramchandra Damodar Umalkar and Ors. has totally no application for the simple reason that though the same arises under Section 23 of the Act, the issue before the Court was whether the Registrar under the provisions of Section 23 can interfere before the society has taken final decision of expulsion of a member. The Court has held in the aforesaid judgment that the Registrar does not acquire jurisdiction till and until final decision is taken on the membership of a person by the society and only the final decision which can be the subject-matter of challenge under Section 23 of the said Act. In the present case, it is nobody's case that final decision has not been taken by the Society. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not see any comparison to the facts of the present case with the Judgment of the Division Bench cited above. We, therefore, are of the view that the said judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the aforesaid view, we do not find any substance even on merits in the argument pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 23 of the said Act.
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
Section 9 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Kumar Singhania and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., while dealing with various supreme Court judgments on different aspects of interpretation has following the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, in which it has been held as under :-
Mohan Kumar Singhania And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 September, 1991
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Kumar Singhania and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., while dealing with various supreme Court judgments on different aspects of interpretation has following the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, in which it has been held as under :-
Directorate Of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan on 31 January, 1994
"Authorising, a few of which we have referred to above, show that in given circumstances, it is permissible for Courts to have functional approaches and look into the legislative intention and sometimes may be even necessary to go behind the words and enactment and take other factors into consideration to give effect to the legislative intention and to the purpose and spirit of the enactment so that no absurdity or practical inconvenience may result and the legislative exercise and its scope and object may not become futile."
1