Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (3.05 seconds)Section 64 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Kumari Jethi T. Sipahimalani vs The Maharashtra State Co-Operative ... on 18 July, 1973
He only referred to some of the decisions, to which our attention was invited on behalf of the petitioner, including the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kumari Jethi T. Sipahimalani v. The Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribunal, Bombay, 76 Bom.L.R. 179. On the question of validity of ex-gratia payment being made to a member of the Society. The Deputy Registrar then referred to Bye-law No. 73 from the Model Bye-laws of a Co-operative Society. Undoubtedly, these Bye-laws apply only in the absence of The Bye-laws adopted by the Society. Admittedly, the first respondent Society has not adopted the Model Bye-law since it has framed its own bye-laws. Bye-law No. 73 referred to by the Deputy Registrar is not the Bye-law of the first respondent Society. If we look to Bye-law No. 73 in the Society's Bye-laws, it deals with the external repairs to the society's buildings being a charge on the revenue of the Society and the internal repairs being required to be done at the expense of the tenant to the satisfaction of the Committee. This Bye-law No. 73 has no relevance whatsoever to the issue that the Deputy Registrar was called upon to decide. The bye-law quoted by the Deputy Registrar is non-existent as far as the first respondent Society is concerned and had no application to the facts of the case before the Deputy Registrar. Neither Bye-law No. 72 nor Bye-law No. 73 of the Model Bye-laws has any application to the petitioner's case.
Section 65 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 72 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
K. Narasimhah vs H. C. Singri Gowda on 1 April, 1964
27. Similarly, in K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda and others, , dealing with the proviso to section 27(3) of the Mysore Towns Municipalities Act of 1951, on the question as to when is giving of notice complete, the Apex Court observed in para 11 of the judgment at page 332 as under:
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 30 March, 1961
In this behalf our attention has been invited to a decision of the Apex Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and anothet, . Dealing with the question of limitation for filing an application against the Award under the Land Acquisition Act, the Apex Court observed that when the rights of the person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved against the said order by reference to the making of the said order, the making of the order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned. So the knowledge of the party affected by award made by the Collection under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, either actual or constructive is an essential (a) requirement of fairplay and natural justice. Therefore, the expression "the date of the award" used in proviso (b) to section 18(2) of the Act must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. It was held that it would be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of Collector's order" used in proviso to section 18 in a literal or mechanical way.