Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)Section 94 in Himachal Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Veerta Devi And Another vs State Of H.P. And Others on 28 December, 2020
given in this judgment has already been taken note of in Veerta
Devi's case supra where the Division Bench held the same
reasoning given by learned Single Judge to be 'in teeth' of the
ratio of many judgments on the issue rendered by different
learned Division Benches. In the light of the judgments passed
by Division Benches of this Court in Daulat Ram, Nikku Ram and
Tiara Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. and Veerta
Devi'cases this Court is unable to hold that these judgments are
per incuriam. As already observed, even the learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 has not disputed that the revision petition filed
by respondent No. 2 would not be maintainable under Section
94(1) of the Act in view of the ratio and reasoning given in the
above four judgments rendered by the learned Division Benches.
The Didwin Co-Operative Agriculture ... vs State Of H.P & Others on 26 May, 2015
The Division Bench held the above observations of
learned Single Judge to be 'in teeth' of the two judgments
rendered by the Division Benches in the Tiara Co-operative
Agricultural Service Society Ltd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
others and Nikku Ram's case.