Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 81 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
Section 82 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 87 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Gramseva Seva Sahakari Sanstha Akoli, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 27 April, 2023
In the case of Dilip v. Commissioner of Co-operation (supra)
learned Single Judge of this Court has analysed the provisions of Section
75(5) of the MCS Act and has held that before the action is taken by the
Registrar, the Registrar has to come to a conclusion that there is no
reasonable excuse or justifiable reason for not complying with the
provisions. In the present case, there is no such finding by the Assistant
Registrar.
Gaurav K. Desai vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 February, 2015
44. Applying the law laid down by this Court as discussed above to the
facts of present case, it can be seen that there was compliance of
Section 75(2) of the MCS Act as the report of Harish Hegde & Co., was
placed before the Annual General Meeting. Even if the audit report of
RSVA & Co., was not placed before the 101 st Annual General Meeting,
the same was subsequently placed before the 102nd Annual General
Meeting and was accepted. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is
the report of RSVA & Co., which would constitute an audit report of
society, the fact remains that the audit report was placed for
consideration in the next Annual General Meeting and maximum what
can be considered is that there was a delay. It is nobody's case that no
audit report was tabled before the general body and the submission is
that the audit report of RSVA & Co., was not tabled before the general
body, which is termed as statutory audit report.
Santosh Hari Gavas And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 21 October, 2021
47. Coming to the decision of Santosh Hari Gavas v. State of
Maharashtra (supra) relied upon by Mr. Dave, the learned Single Judge
has emphasized the legislative intent in prescribing the time limit for
getting the books of accounts audited as well as the mandatory
requirement of placing the same before the Annual General Meeting to
ensure the transparency, proficiency and efficient management of
society. There is no quarrel with the said proposition. However, the
facts are clearly distinguishable for the reason that in that case the
office bearers of society failed to convene and hold the Annual General
Meeting within the statutory period for the reason which cannot be said
to be beyond their control and has therefore held that to contend such
lapse would run counter to the statutory provisions. Facts of the case
are clearly distinguishable are not applicable to the present case.
CONCLUSION:
Section 154B in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Chetan Jaydev Mehta And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 June, 2022
[a] Chetan Mehta v. State of Maharashtra [2022 SCC OnLine Bom
8139];
1