SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., D.A. DESAI, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
Daman Singh and others, etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and others, etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 206; 2861; 250; 320; 1607; 3548; 379; 769; 1280 of 1979 and 1476-1483 of 1985, D/- 4-4-1985.
Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 - Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Section 13(8), 13, 8, 13(2), 13(9)(b), 13(11) – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 31A(1)(c), 14, 19, 19(1)(f) - Constitution Act, 1955 - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Tibbia College Act, 1952 - Punjab Act - Section 30 - Co-operative Societies - Validity of Provisions - High Courts appears to be unanimous on question of validity of the relevant provisions of Co-operative Societies Acts in force in their respective States providing for compulsory amalgamation of Co-operative Societies - Full Benches of High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana. have upheld validity of such provisions - But litigants, particularly those who are in a position to command funds are rarely deterred by such unanimity of judicial opinion - So, several Co-operative Societies of Punjab have chosen to prefer appeals to this Court questioning vires of S. 13(8) of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act which provides for compulsory amalgamation of co-operative societies if it is necessary in interests of co-operative societies - Questions raised are simple and straight and are capable of but single, straightforward answers - Unfortunately a large number of appeals have piled up in this Court on these questions that a large number of writ petitions said to involve these or similar questions are pending in various High Courts in country awaiting decision of this Court - Whether new Board was a corporation, court had no difficulty in answering question with reference to sub-section (2) of S. 3 which stated that Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal and shall by said name sue and be sued - Whether a certain ground to which no reference is found, in, judgment of subordinate court was argued before that court or not – Held, Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for one of Appellants very airily made a submission that Art. 31-A(1)(c) introduced by Constitution Act and S. 13(8) of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act offended Basic Structure of Constitution as they affected dignity of human being and were therefore void – Court find ourselves unable to appreciate how dignity of a human being can even remotely be said to be affected by amalgamation of a co-operative society of which an individual is a member with another co-operative society – Court expect counsel appearing In this Court, particularly when they appear before Constitution Bench, to avoid advancing such totally unsustainable propositions - Time of this court is public time and as mountainous arrears show time is becoming increasingly dear and precious – Court can only appeal to counsel to carefully examine with a greater sense of responsibility submissions which they propose to make before actually advancing them in court - All appeals are dismissed with costs which we quantity each Rs. 2,500/- in each appeal - Appeals dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The validity of provisions related to the compulsory amalgamation of co-operative societies has been upheld by multiple High Courts across various states, indicating a broad judicial consensus on their constitutionality (!) (!) .
Despite the judicial consensus, some litigants have challenged specific provisions, particularly Section 13(8) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, on grounds that they infringe upon fundamental rights or affect individual dignity (!) .
The legislation in question was enacted pursuant to a national policy decision aimed at simplifying co-operative law and promoting the development of the co-operative movement, which is also a Directive Principle of State Policy (!) (!) .
The relevant provisions, especially those concerning amalgamation, are designed to serve the interests of the co-operative societies and are in the public interest, thereby falling within the scope of protections offered under constitutional provisions that safeguard legislation in the interest of public welfare and proper management (!) .
The statutes explicitly establish co-operative societies as bodies corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, conferring upon them a legal personality recognized under law (!) (!) .
The constitutional scheme explicitly includes co-operative societies within the broader category of corporations, as evidenced by their inclusion in legislative entries and constitutional provisions, and does not intend to treat them as separate or excluded entities (!) (!) .
The protections provided under constitutional amendments and legislation extend to all corporations, including statutory and co-operative societies, especially when such legislation is enacted in the public interest or for proper management (!) (!) .
The procedural safeguards, such as notices to societies and opportunities for objections, are considered sufficient to satisfy principles of natural justice, given that members act through their societies and not individually (!) .
The challenge that certain provisions infringe upon fundamental rights or affect human dignity is unfounded, as the legislation does not interfere with individual rights but regulates the functioning of co-operative societies as legal entities (!) .
Overall, the appeals against the legislation were dismissed, affirming the constitutional validity of the provisions and emphasizing the importance of responsible legal argumentation (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this document.
Judgment
CHINAPPA REDDY, J.:- The opinion of the High Courts appears to be unanimous on the question of the validity of the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Acts in force in their respective States providing for the compulsory amalgamation of Co-operative Societies. The Full Benches of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana. (DB?) and a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, AIR 1978 Andh Pra 121 (FB). (There is also an excellent discussion by Vaidya, J. in ILR (1972) Andh Pra 1140) have upheld the validity of such provisions. But litigants, particularly those who are in a position to command funds are rarely deterred by such unanimity of judicial opinion. So, several Co-operative Societies of Punjab have chosen to prefer appeals to this Court questioning the vires of S. 13(8) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act which provides for the compulsory amalgamation of co-operative societies if it is necessary in the interests of the co-operative societies. The questions raised are simple and straight and are capable of but single, straightforward answers. Unfortunately a large number of appeals have piled up in this Court on these questions and we are told that a large number of writ petitions said to involve these or similar questions are pending in the various High Courts in the country awaiting the decision of this Court. We earnestly hope that this decision will put an end to this branch of the litigation and will serve to push forward the co-operative movement. We think it is needless to refer to the nature and history of the co-operative movement except to say that the promotion of the co-operative movement is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy (see Art. 43 of the Constitution). As usual in these and such cases, the counter-affidavits, where they have been filed, leave much to be desired and are least helpful. But, as pointed out by us often enough, the vires of legislation is not to be decided on the basis of affidavits of underlings of the executive Who can hardly be described as authorised to speak for the legislature. But even from the meagre material available to us from the record, it is obvious that the provisions relating to amalgamation of Co-operative Societies in different States, enactments were introduced pursuant to a policy decision arrived at an All India Conference. This is evident from the circumstance that these provisions were enacted by the various State legislatures roughly at about the same time. A reference to the policy decision at. an All India Conference may be found in the Full Bench Judgments of the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka High Courts. It is unnecessary to say more on this aspect of the case.
2. The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 which replaced the earlier Act was enacted, so it is stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, "In pursuance of the policy of the Government of India to simplify co-operative law and procedure in order to remove all bottlenecks in the way of development of co-operative movement in the country." It is further stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons :
"The important provisions, such as relating to change of liability, amalgamation of societies, splitting up of societies, settlement of disputes and winding up of societies, etc. were found to be of a dilatory and complicated nature, and, therefore, creating problems in the day to day working of the co-operative societies. Special care has, therefore, been taken to cut out all unnecessary delays particularly in registration of societies and the provisions to this effect have been simplified. Another approach influencing a change is to make the Co-operative Law comprehensive. Moreover consistent with our national policy to promote the organisation and growth of the co-operative societies in the various fields of economic activity, more difficult and complicated forms of co-operative societies are to spring up as compared to Co-operative Credit S
distinguished : Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India
relied on : Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v. State of Delhi
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.