Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)The Delhi Co-Operative Societies Act, 2003
Shri P. Subba Rao And Ors. vs Andhra Association (Regd.) And Ors. ... on 28 March, 2008
10. The counsel for the Petitioner has however placed strong reliance on
Suresh Chand aforesaid to contend that the Division Bench of this Court in
that case had entertained the Writ Petition.
Col. Suresh Chand (Retd.) & Another vs Delhi Co-Operative Tribunal & Ors. on 19 November, 2009
4. It is thus contended that with the said resignations, only four members
were left in the Managing Committee while the statutory requirement is of a
minimum 5 members. Reference is made to Suresh Chand v. Delhi Co-
operative Tribunal 167(2010) DLT 590, in the last paragraph of which
judgment the Division Bench observed that upon the number of members of
the Managing Committee dropping below the statutory requirement, the
Registrar, Co-operative Societies is required to take action in accordance
with law to see that the affairs of the Society are conducted on a day-to-day
basis and that fresh elections are conducted as early as possible.
Section 112 in The Delhi Co-Operative Societies Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Delhi Co-Operative Societies Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Narender Kumar Jain vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 October, 2008
11. It is not as if the Division Bench in Suresh Chand did not notice the
earlier dicta in Narender Kumar Jain (supra). The Division Bench in
W.P.(C) No.4333/2011 Page 7 of 8
Suresh Chand also held that when such Writ Petitions are filed, High Courts
relegate the parties to pursue their alternative remedies but nevertheless
chose to interfere in that case for the reason of the option of relegating the
parties in that case to arbitration being not efficacious since the term of the
Managing Committee constitution whereof was challenged was also to come
to an end. However, that is not the position here. The Petitioners herein
have an alternative efficacious remedy available to them.
1