Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR642; 2007(4)BomCR613; (2007)109BOMLR1005; 2007(1)GLR518
N.A. Britto, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners assail the letter/communication dated 20-12-2005 issued by the Director(Co-operation) with the approval of the Central Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, by which it has been clarified that the term of Office of the present Board of Directors(Respondent Nos.5 to 20) will be 5 years from the date of election(25-1-2003). 2. The petitioners have assailed the said letter essentially on the ground that it is grossly illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized since the Certificate of Registration dated 1-3-2004 had fixed the tenure of the present Board of Directors to 3 years and the tenure of 5 years was for the Board of Directors to be elected in future. The petitioners have therefore sought, interalia, for a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order and direction to quash and set aside the said clarification contained in the said letter dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2004Bom166; 2004(1)ALLMR798; II(2004)BC585; 2004(1)BomCR707; 2004(1)MhLj704
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. A batch of writ petitions has been placed before this Bench. The principal question of law that arises for consideration is 'Do the courts and authorities constituted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (the 1960 Act) and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (the 2002 Act) continue to have jurisdiction to entertain applications/disputes submitted before them by the Co-operative Banks incorporated under the 1960 Act and the 2002 Act for an order for recovery of debts due to them, after establishment of a Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. (the 1993 Act)'.2. The events that led to the placing of all these petitions before us are that the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Scheduled Multi-State Cooperative Bank, filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the 1993 Act for recovery of certain amounts from M/s Star Glass Works. Before the Debts Recovery ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD532; 2004(1)ALT642
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner availed loan from Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., ('the Bank') the first respondent herein. As the petitioner failed to repay the loan, the Bank initiated proceedings under Section 74 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (Central Act of 1984). The Joint Registrar or Co-operative Societies/ OSD, the second respondent herein, in proceedings dated 28-8-2002 passed an award directing the petitioner and two others to pay an amount of Rs. 4,13,328/-(Rupees Four lakhs thirteen thousand three hundred and seventy eight only) jointly and severally with interest at 22% per annum from 1-4-2002 as per the agreement executed by the petitioner on 21-8-2000. Still thereafter, the petitioner did not comply with the award. Therefore, the first respondent initiated execution proceedings presumably under Section 70 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 ('Co-operative Societies Act') and the second respondent issued notice of sale to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4867
Jain, C.J.1. These Writ Appeals are filed against the common order dated 24.7.2003 passed in W.P.N. 6058/2003 wherein the learned Single Judge has not interfered with Notification dated 26.12.2002 (Annexure-A), issued by the 1st respondent. As in both the appeals, common questions of law and fact are involved, they are taken up together.2. It is stated that the 2nd respondent is a society governed by Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (Central Act 39 of 2002) (for short 'the 2002 Act'). Earlier the Act of 1984 was in force and it was replaced by the 2002 Act. The management of the 2nd respondent -Society is vested with the Board of Directors. The appellant - petitioner was elected as a member of the Board of Directors vide notification dated 22.01.2003 for a period of 3 years. Being aggrieved by the issuance of notification dated 26.12.2002, issued by the State Government, the appellant - petitioner filed the above Writ Petition challenging the nomination of the 3rd and the 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1584; 2007(3)ALT1(SC); [2007]137CompCas63(SC); JT2007(5)SC201; 2007(3)KLT302(SC); 2007(3)MhLj434; 2007(5)SCALE366; (2007)6SCC236; 2007AIRSCW2325; 2007(3)AIRKarR406
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.Civil Appeal No. 6069/2005, Civil Appeal No. 6077/2005 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2071/2006 are taken on board. 1. A Bench of two judges before which this batch of twelve civil appeals and five special leave petitions came up for consideration was of the view that looking to the issues involved and the far-reaching consequences which such a decision will leave, these matters require consideration by a larger Bench. This is what the Bench observed in the order dated 1st December, 2005.This batch of Appeals/SLPs involved an important issue regarding right of recovery of debts by the co-operative banks constituted under the Co-operative Societies Acts of the States of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. The issue has arisen in the context of enactment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Under the Co- operative Societies Acts, there is a mechanism for recovery of debts by the Banks constituted under those Acts, which are also called Co-o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(95)DRJ618
Gita Mittal, J.1. By this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that he has raised an arbitration dispute before the Central Registrar appointed under the provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 before the Central Registrar at New Delhi under Section 84 of the Act. It is pointed out that by virtue of Section 84 Sub-section 5 of the statute, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 are applicable to the arbitration proceedings under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and consequently this Court has jurisdiction under Section 9 to grant the relief prayed for.2. The undisputed factual matrix to the extent necessary for adjudication in the present case are noticed hereafter. The Indian Medical Practitioners' Co-op. Pharmacy and Stores Ltd. is a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker72; 2005(1)KLT206; [2006]69SCL33(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The issue to be decided in this case is the power of State Government in nominating Directors in the Board of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Under Section 48 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (Act 39 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act'), vis-a-vis the power of nomination by the Central and State Governments as per the bye-laws. The Central Areacanut and Coco Marketing and Processing Cooperative Ltd., properly known as CAMP CO Ltd. is a Multi-State Co-operative Society. The bye-laws of the society were framed in conformity with the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (Act 51 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1984 Act'). The State Governments of Kerala and Karnataka have subscribed to the share capital of the second respondent society. Clause 16 of bye-laws of the society provides the constitution of the Board of Directors of the society. The total members of the Board is 19. As per Clause 16(1)(c) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR2204
D.A. Mehta, J.1. As the pleadings are complete, considering the issue involved, the petition has been heard finally. RULE. The learned advocates appearing for the respondents are directed to waive service of rule.2. This petition has been preferred challenging order dated 25.01.2007 (ANNEXURE-A) and following reliefs have been prayed for:9. On the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner prays to Your Lordships that;A. be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 25.1.2007 at Annexure-A to the petition;B. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships will be pleased to stay further operation, execution and implementation of the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 25.1.2007 at Annexure-A to the petition;C. Be pleased to award the cost of this petition;D. Such other and further relief that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)BomCR666
Oka Abhay S., J.1. By this order I am deciding the following questions which have arisen for consideration:(i) Whether the decision of this Court in the case of (Re: Deepak Cochhar v. Indusind Bank Ltd.) : 2006(3)BomCR520 is no longer a good law in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd.) : AIR2007SC168 ?(ii) Whether an insolvency notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (for short P.I. Act) can be issued on the basis of a recovery certificate issued under The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the R.D.B. Act)?(iii) Whether an insolvency notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the P.I. Act can be issued on the basis of an Award made by a Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Co-operative Societies Act)?(iv) Whether an insolvency notice under Section 2 of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)MhLj451
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. By this order I am deciding the following questions which have arisen for consideration:(i) Whether the decision of this Court in the case of Re. Deepak Cochhar and Anr. - Debtors and Indusindh Bank Ltd. - Creditors : 2006(3)BomCR520 is no longer a good law in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd. : AIR2007SC168 ?(ii) Whether an insolvency notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (for short PI Act) can be issued on the basis of a recovery certificate issued under The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the RDB Act)?(iii) Whether an insolvency notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the PI Act can be issued on the basis of an Award made by a Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Co-operative Societies Act)?(iv) Whether an insolvency notice unde...
Tag this Judgment!