Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)
Professor Gurdial Singh Sokhi And ... vs Neel Shantiniketan Co-Operative ... on 8 November, 2023
cites
The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912
The Meghalaya Co-operative Societies Act
The Bengal Secretariat Cooperative ... vs Sri Aloke Kumar on 18 October, 2022
In Bengal Secretariat Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank and
Housing Society Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court has held in Paragraph Nos.56,
57, 58, 59 & 60 as under:
Daman Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 4 April, 1985
57. By now it is well established position that once a person becomes a
member of the Co-operative Society, he loses his individuality with the
Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the
statute and bye-laws. The member has to speak through the Society or rather
the Society alone can act and speaks for him qua the rights and duties of the
Society as a body (see : Daman Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1985) 2
SCC 670 : AIR 1985 SC 973).
State Of U.P.. & Anr. Etc vs C.O.D. Chheoki Employees' ... on 17 January, 1997
This view has been followed in the
subsequent decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P v. Chheoki
Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 681 : AIR
1997 SC 1413. In this decision, this Court further observed that the member
of a Society has no independent right qua the Society and it is the Society
that is entitled to represent as the corporate aggregate. This Court also
observed that the stream cannot rise higher than the source. Suffice it to
observe that so long as the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the
Appellant Society are in force and not overturned by a forum of competent
jurisdiction, the said decisions would bind the Respondent No. 1. He cannot
be permitted to take a stand alone position but is bound by the majority
decision of the General Body. Notably, the Respondent No. 1 has not
challenged the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the Appellant
Society to redevelop the property and more so, to appoint the Hi-Rise as the
Developer to give him all the redevelopment rights.
Girish Mulchand Mehta vs Mahesh S. Mehta on 10 December, 2009
34. .... No provision in the Co- operative Societies Act or the Rules or
any other legal provisions has been brought to my notice which would curtail
the right of the Society to redevelop the property when the General Body of
the Society intends to do so. Essentially, that is the commercial wisdom of
the General Body of the Society. It is not open for the Court to sit over the
wisdom of the General Body as an Appellate Body/Appellate Authority,
merely because some members in minority disapprove of the decision of the
General Body, unless it is shown that the decision was the product of fraud
or misrepresentation or was opposed to some statutory prohibition. The
aforesaid view has consistently been taken by this Court in (i) Girish
Mulchand Mehta v. Mahesh S. Mehta 1 , (ii) Akash Pruthvi Lifestyle v.
M/S Maya Developers vs Neelam R Thakkar And 20 Ors on 13 July, 2016
It is now well settled in the
case of Maya Developers (supra) that the 2009 direction is not mandatory
when there is substantial compliance. Moreover, 34 out of 37 occupants have
vacated the said building without any demur or protest showing that the
majority overwhelmingly supported the development by the Plaintiffs,
amendment of the Bank Guarantee clause and execution of the
Supplementary Deed as well as the Deed of Assignment. Defendant Nos. 2
to 4 have also addressed a letter dated 27 th May, 2016 (Exhibit-SS to the
Plaint) wherein they have stated that they were ready for an amicable
solution so that the redevelopment process goes as per schedule and that they
were not against redevelopment. I find that in the present case there is
substantial compliance and the actions of the Society are supported by all its
members save and except Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4."
Section 354 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Estella Fernandes Nee Estella ... vs Swarna Highrise Constructions And Anr on 4 May, 2023
In a given case, a developer
may opt for less that 35% fungible compensatory area on account of
circumstances of a particular case like height restriction, etc. Therefore, grant
of 35% Fungible Compensatory Area cannot, in each case, be treated as a
Sajakali Jamadar 14/24
::: Uploaded on - 10/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2024 23:44:03 :::
AO-726-2023.doc
statutory right as sought to be suggested by the Plaintiffs. It may depend on
facts of each case. I am fortified in my view that 35% fungible compensatory
area cannot be utilized in every building on account of Division Bench
Judgment of this Court in Estella Fernandes Nee Estella Fernandes Vs. Swarna
Highrise Constructions & Anr. in Writ Petition No.2329 of 2019 along with
other connected Petitions on 04 May 2023, wherein this Court held in
Paragraph Nos.36 & 37 are as under: