Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 30 in The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912 [Entire Act]
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
It is
also settled that he who alleges violation of the principles of
18
natural justice must also establish a serious jeopardy of his
rights, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Managing Director, EICL v. B. Karunakar supra is a
reiteration of the same.
Harivadan Babubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2013
5. Sri P.P. Hegde submits that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Harivadan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat1
has observed that the Registrar/Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies must follow judicial precedents
emphasizing that ratio decidendi has the force of law and is
1 (2013) 7 SCC 25
9
binding on all statutory authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has also issued general directions to be followed for
superseding elected Committees and these directions require
the authorities under the concerned Cooperative Societies
Acts to give sufficient time [at least, 6 months] to rectify
defects and the concerned must bear in mind that the
consequences of an order of supersession would not only oust
the Board out of office but also disqualify the members from
contesting elections and the succeeding elections.
M/S Deepak Apparels Pvt Ltd vs City Union Bank Ltd on 22 March, 2016
He relies upon paragraph - 53 of the Full Bench
decision of this Court in M/s. Deepak Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v.
City Union Bank Ltd.4
Section 30 in Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sanjay Danachand Ghodawat vs Annasaheb Malgonda Patil on 23 July, 2014
16. It is settled that generally the rule of alternative
remedy is invoked and the concerned directed to avail
alternative remedy, but when it is shown that there is failure
to comply with the principles of natural justice and that has
resulted in prejudice to the concerned, this Court would
exercise the plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. This Court's decision in Sanjay V.
Patil v. State of Karnataka and Others supra is a
reiteration of this settled position. The petitioners contend
that the second respondent's impugned order is in violation of
pri-nciples of natural justice because they have not been
furnished with the annexures referred to in the Show Cause
Notice dated 09.05.2022 and they have been denied
reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Sri Sanjay B Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2009
16. It is settled that generally the rule of alternative
remedy is invoked and the concerned directed to avail
alternative remedy, but when it is shown that there is failure
to comply with the principles of natural justice and that has
resulted in prejudice to the concerned, this Court would
exercise the plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. This Court's decision in Sanjay V.
Patil v. State of Karnataka and Others supra is a
reiteration of this settled position. The petitioners contend
that the second respondent's impugned order is in violation of
pri-nciples of natural justice because they have not been
furnished with the annexures referred to in the Show Cause
Notice dated 09.05.2022 and they have been denied
reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations.
1