Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)Section 34 in The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912 [Entire Act]
S. Seetha Ramaiah Naidu vs Ongole Co-Operative Bank Ltd. And Anr. on 2 April, 1973
54. A Division Bench of this Court in S.Seetha Ramaiah Naidu v. Ongole Co-
operative Bank Ltd held that there cannot be a valid meeting of a Managing
Committee if there is no quorum and that in such a case, there is no meeting.
It held that the word quorum denotes the number of persons whose presence
is required in order that business may be transacted validly by a body and to
render its acts valid, and that quorum is thus a foundation for the validity of a
meeting.
The Meghalaya Co-operative Societies Act
Section 30 in The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912 [Entire Act]
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986
6. The learned Government Pleader has taken us through the decisions
in Chandravarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata, and C. Appala Swamy v. Govt of
A.P., 1983 (2) An.W.R. 225 and contended that where there is inconsistency
between a provision made under the Act and the Rules, the by-law must give way
to the rule.
The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912
K. Parasuramaiah vs Pokurl Lakshmamma on 11 December, 1964
7. We are in entire agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel
for the appellant. Accordingly, we hold that there is no conflict between Rule 23-
AAA of the Rules and bye-law No. 20 of the 2nd respondent-society and these
two can survive independently. The decisions cited by the learned Government
Pleader have no relevance to the facts of the case on hand. The ratio laid down
in those decisions is on a different proposition and, therefore, they cannot be
made applicable to the facts of the case. As we have held that there is no conflict
in the two provisions, the finding of the learned single judge cannot sustain.
Pamarthy Veeraswamy vs The Collector (Co-Operation), ... on 18 July, 1984
61. No doubt, the decision in Pamarthy Veeraswamy (1 supra) laid down that
there is a distinction between existence of a Committee but without quorum
and a situation where there is no Committee at all, and laid down that if there
is a Committee, but it is not functioning, Section 32 (7) would have no
application.