SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., A.N. RAY, D.G. PALEKAR, M.H. BEG AND S.N. DWIVEDI, JJ.
Veerpal Singh, Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Meerut and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 214 of 1972, D/- 23-1-1973.
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 32 and 226 - Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1965 – Section 38(1),38(2) and 128 - Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules 1968 – Rule 453(1)(o) – Federation - Co-operative Societies - Petitioner were delegates from Co-operative Unions respectively to Bulandshahr Federation - Circumstances under which aforesaid order came to be passed are these according to Deputy Registrar - There was an inspection in the month by the Deputy Registrar - Co-operative Societies about constitution, working and financial condition of Bulandshahr Federation - Deputy Registrar found that three constituent members of Federation and the Co-operative Union Unchagaon were defaulters in respect of their dues to Bulandshahr Federation - Whether Registrar has power under Section 128 of Act to annul resolutions of society – Held, Federation contended that Secretary disobeyed instructions - Chairman under bye-law is responsible for the control, supervision and efficient administration of Federation - Chairman appointed an elected Director, Advocate for the purpose of recording minutes - Under Section 118 of Act no act of a co-operative society or any committee of management shall be deemed to be invalid by reason of existence of any defect in constitution inter alia of committee or in appointment of an officer of a cooperative society or on ground that such officer was disqualified for such appointment - Meeting of the Federation was properly conducted - Petitioner will be entitled to costs to be paid by respondents - Order for payment as costs is cancelled - Petition allowed.
Judgment
RAY, J. :- The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution asks for quashing of orders of the respondent Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Meerut dated 2 May, 1972.
2. By the said order dated 2 May, 1972 the respondent Deputy Registrar removed Rajendra Singh, Yograj Singh and the petitioner Veerpal Singh from the Board of Directors of the District Co-operative Federation, Bulandshahr referred to as the Bulandshahr Federation and declared them to be disqualified to the office of the Directors of the Bulandshahr Federation for a period of three years from the date of the order.
3. Rajendra Singh, Yograj Singh and the petitioner Veerpal Singh were delegates from the Co-operative Unions of Jarcha, Raura and Unchagaon respectively to the Bulandshahr Federation.
4. The circumstances under which the aforesaid order came to be passed are these according to the Deputy Registrar. There was an inspection in the month of February, 1971 by the Deputy Registrar. Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh about the constitution, working and financial condition of the Bulandshahr Federation. The Deputy Registrar found that the three constituent members of the Federation, viz., Sehkari Sangh Raura, Sehkari Sangh Jarcha and the Co-operative Union Unchagaon were defaulters in respect of their dues to the Bulandshahr Federation. Therefore the delegates from these three constituent members at Raura, Jarcha and Unchagaon were not qualified to be elected as members of the Board of Directors of the Bulandshahr Federation. The annual general meeting of the Bulandshahr Federation in spite of such disqualification of those three delegates elected them as Directors of the Bulandshahr Federation. The Federation in accordance with their resolution dated 3 April 1971 stated that the three constituent members at Raura, Jarcha and Unchagaon were not defaulters. The Deputy Registrar stated that if a member union was a defaulter such member-union was disqualified and the disqualification attached to the delegates of such a union. The Deputy Registrar gave the Federation notice under S. 38 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1965 referred to as the Act to comply with the requirements in the inspection note. The Federation did not comply with the requirements indicated in the report of the inspection note. The Deputy Registrar therefore passed the said order dated 2 May, 1972.
5. It is necessary to refer to certain other events which took place prior to thhe passing of the said order. The Bulandshahr Federation held its annual general meeting on 20 March, 1971. At the annual general meeting the committee of management was elected. The petitioner was elected one of the Directors constituting the committee of management of the Bulandshahr Federation. In the month of April 1970 the petitioner was unanimously elected as Chairman of the Bulandshahr Federation.
6. After the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Socieites sent a copy of the inspection report dated 10 February 1971 the committee of management of the Bulandshahr Federation considered the inspection report at a meeting held on 3 April 1971. The petitioner Veerpal Singh, Rajendra Singh and Yograj Singh did not participate at the meeting inasmuch as the inspection note related to their alleged disqualification. The committee of management of the Bulandshahr Federation recorded that Shri L. N. Batra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khurja as a Security Officer in his judgment dated 5 March 1970 in connection with the nomination papers of Yograj Singh, Rajendra Singh stated that they were not defaulters and they were competent for membership of the Board of Directors. The Committee of management of the Bulandshahr Federation further resolved that none of the three persons namely, the petitioner, Yograj Singh and Rajendra Singh had personally taken any loan from the Bulandshahr Federation nor had the constituent members viz., the Unions at Jarcha, Raura and Unchagaon ever take
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.