Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.45 seconds)Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar vs The District Magistrate, Thana(And ... on 17 September, 1956
(i) AIR 1952 SC 324 (Shamrao vs. the District Magistrate)
; paragraph-12
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Nusli Neville Wadia And Another on 13 December, 2007
(ii) (2008) 3 SCC 279 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Nusli Neville Wadia)
Ram Kinkar Banerjee vs Satya Charan Srimani on 29 November, 1938
(iii) AIR 1950 Privy Council 81(Ram Kissendas vs. Satya Charan)
N. T. Veluswami Thevar vs G. Raja Nainar And Others on 24 November, 1958
(iv) AIR 1959 SC 422 (Veluswami vs. Raja Nainar)
Divyaman Singh Vaidya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2014
Mr. Yogendra Mishra while opposing the writ petitioners in
CWJC No. 11665 of 2015 submits that Section 14(9) of the Act was a
consequence of the 97th Amendment to the Constitution. Referring to
Article 243 ZJ he submits that the term of the members and office
bearers of the Board is co-terminus with the term of the board and it is
only where any casual vacancy arises and the term of the Board is less
than half that the same is to be filled up by nomination while in other
casual vacancies occurring where the term of the Board exceeds half
of the original term, it has to be filled up by a by-election. He submits
that the provision of Section 14(9) of „the Act‟ has been framed to fill
up the casual vacancies occurring during the existence of the
Managing Committee but not where the very identity of the Managing
Committee is wiped out under an order of dissolution passed under
Section 41(5) (b) of „the Act‟. With reference to the provisions of
Section 41 he submits that the provisions relating to the issue of
dissolution is in two parts and Section 41(1) to Section 41(4) of „the
Act‟ relates to circumstances where the functioning of the society is
Patna High Court CWJC No.9491 of 2015 dt.17-08-2015 20
affected due to mal functioning of the Managing Committee
warranting an order of suspension / supersession at the discretion of
the Registrar. He submits that on the other hand Section 41(5) of „the
Act‟ is in distinct circumstances where half of the members of the
Managing Committee choose to resign from the Managing Committee
thus reducing it to a minority. He submits that the moment a majority
of the members of the Managing Committee resign, there is no option
for the Registrar but to dissolve the Managing Committee. Mr.
Mishra, referring to a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1990
Patna 6 (Vaidya Singh vs. State) has submitted that it was held that
where the Co-operative Societies is silent on any issue then an answer
to the circumstances can be searched under the Representation of
People Act. He submits that just as a dissolution of parliament leads
to a fresh election, the same would follow also in the present case and
no sooner a Managing Committee is dissolved, whether or not any
elected member or office bearer remain to resign, he would also face
dissolution. Learned counsel has referred to a decision of the
Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 87:(2002) 8 SCC 237 which
is a matter arising out of presidential reference in the Gujarat
Assembly Election matter and with particular reference to paragraph-
53 and 54 of the judgment he submits that the term dissolution has
been explained to mean bringing to an end any legislative body. He
submits that Section 14(9) of „the Act‟ is a provision merely to cater
Patna High Court CWJC No.9491 of 2015 dt.17-08-2015 21
to casual vacancies and where the vacancies would exceed half, the
only consequence is dissolution.