Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9 in The M.P. Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Sri Konaseema Co-Operative Central ... vs N. Seetharama Raju on 5 March, 1990
20. In the circumstances and the facts of the case, in our opinion, reliance by Shri R.D.Jain, counsel for the respondents, on Full Bench decisions of Orissa, Punjab & Haryana and Andhra Pradesh High Courts and a Division Bench decision of Patna High Court, which were the cases of Co-operative Societies dealing with the question involved, is well merited. See Sana-bihari Tripathy v. Registrar of Co- operative Societies, AIR 1989 Orissa 31: Pritan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 P & H 228; Sri Konaseema Co- operative Central Bank Ltd, v. N. Seetharama Raju, AIR 1990 A.P. 171, and Harender Narain Banker v. State of Bihar, 1985 Lab. I.C. 1807.
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Dilip Kumar Sharma & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 1975
24. Coming to the last unreported decision in
the case of Dilip Kumar v. State of M.P. (M.P. No. 836/1988), decided on April 19, 1990, the
Division Bench relying on the tests laid down in
case of Tekraj Vasandi (supra), observed that the
counsel for the petitioner was unable to
demonstrate that respondent No. 2, Dugdha
Mahasangh, is a "State". 3
Section 2 in The M.P. Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Unni Krishnan, J.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 February, 1993
29. The view taken in (1989-II-LLJ-324) has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in para 82 of the judgment in Unnikrishnan J.P.'s case (supra).