Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)Section 25A in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000
24. So far as the decision of the Apex Court in Aligarh Muslim University's case (supra) is concerned, it was based on admitted or undisputed facts. That is not the case in the matter in hand. It is nowhere admitted by the petitioners that they had failed to comply with their obligations as regards supply of cane to the society. The contention of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, however, is that there are no pleadings or materials placed on record to disclose that the petitioners and other alleged aggrieved members had in fact supplied sugarcane as was otherwise obligatory for them in terms of the bye-laws of the society. It is too premature for us to consider the said contention as we have already held above that there was no opportunity given to the petitioners and other persons in that regard by the competent authority before deciding the said issue by the impugned order. In the absence of adjudication of the said issue by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of law, it is not necessary for the petitioners to plead and disclose the said fact in the petition. In the circumstances, merely because the petitioners have not disclosed those facts that would not be a justification to non-suit the petitioners. That apart there are some copies of documents produced on record to reveal prima facie that respondent No. 4 has all throughout continued to treat the petitioners as its members. However, on this aspect we do not want to express any final opinion. It will be for the competent authority dealing with Section 79B of the said Act to decide the said issue and it would be too premature for us to express any opinion in that regard without the competent authority adjudicating the said issue.
Ramachandra Ganpat Shinde And Another vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 17 August, 1993
26. As regards the contention raised on behalf of the intervenors that there is collusion between the petitioners and respondent No. 4 society, that no interference is called for and the petition is liable to be dismissed, is also devoid of substance. The intervenors have not pointed out any material on record which would disclose any such collusion. In order to draw an inference about collusion, the facts revealing such collusion are to be established. In the absence of such facts being disclosed from the record, the question of rejecting the petition on that ground does not arise. The decision in Ramchandra Shinde's case has, therefore, no application to the matter in issue once we hold that the material on record nowhere discloses any collusion between the parties to obtain any relief from this Court.
Lakshmi Charan Sen And Ors Etc vs A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman And Ors. Etc on 8 May, 1985
The Apex Court in Lakshmi Charan Sen's case (supra) had ruled that the right to be included in the electoral roll or to challenge inclusion of any name in the voters list is a right conferred on an individual and not upon a political party. In fact, this ruling itself would justify rejection of the contention sought to be raised on behalf of respondent No. 4. The Apex Court in the said decision in no uncertain terms had ruled that the petition in representative capacity is maintainable when the identity of the persons for whose benefit the petition is filed can be ascertained from the petition, though such a petition would not lie when identity of such persons for whose benefit it is filed is not known or is not disclosed in the petition. In the case in hand, identity of persons for whose benefits the relief is sought for is made very clear and therefore, there is no substance in the contentions sought to be raised on behalf of respondent No. 4. The decision sought to be relied on, rather than assisting the respondent No. 4, justifies the view we are taking in the matter.
Section 23 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 25 September, 2001
Non-inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the voters list is merely a consequence of the said order. The dispute essentially relates to the said order. The moment the said order ceases to have existence or becomes unenforceable, undoubtedly the consequences thereof would be the inclusion of names of those persons in the voters list. This being so, the issue which was before the Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru 's case, while deciding the question about restraint which the Court had to observe once the election process commences, was totally different than the issue being dealt with in the matter in hand. The said decision would not, therefore, justify the contention of the learned Advocate for respondent No. 4 that the present petition is not maintainable or will have to be dismissed in limine. Besides, in the said matter before the Apex Court, the election process had already been concluded and the only result was to be declared and it was withheld on account of specific directions in that regard issued by the Apex Court. That is not the case in the matter in hand.
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
1