Back
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH
Shashikant Sonaji Deshmukh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The case involves a dispute over the supersession of the Board of Directors of a cooperative society and the subsequent legal proceedings, including appeals and writ petitions (!) .
The Board of Directors was elected for a five-year term, but proceedings were initiated under statutory provisions to supersede the Board, which resulted in an order superseding the Board's authority (!) [1000296860001].
The appellate authority, namely the secretary to the government, dismissed the appeal on the same day as the hearing, which was argued to be a mere formality, raising questions about the fairness and adequacy of the hearing process (!) [1000296860001].
The appellants challenged the appellate order before the High Court, which directed a new election to be held within a specified timeframe, but the appellants contested whether the High Court's order was made with their consent or based on an adjudication of the merits (!) (!) .
There were allegations of mala fide and undue pressure from political authorities influencing the orders, and the appellants contended that the authorities had not filed counter-affidavits to substantiate their claims (!) [1000296860004].
The court observed that, in the absence of clear evidence of consent from the appellants, any order made by the High Court would not be sustainable, and thus, the writ petitions needed to be reheard on their merits (!) [1000296860005].
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter back for a fresh disposal, emphasizing the importance of recording consent and proper proceedings, and requested the High Court to expedite the case (!) [1000296860006].
Interim orders previously granted would continue to operate unless directed otherwise by the High Court upon rehearing (!) [1000296860006].
If you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this case, please let me know.
(1) APPELLANTS seek special leave to appeal to this court from the common order dated 15/08/1991 of the High court at Bombay made in Writ Petition Nos. 1120 and 1121 of 1990. We have heard Mr Masodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr Bhasme, learned counsel for the respondent-State and its authorities, and Mr Biria, learned counsel for Respondent 6. Special leave granted.
(2) THE appellants in these two appeals along with Respondent 6 were elected to the Board of Directors of a Cooperative Society : "The Ahmednagar Zilla Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sangh Ltd." for a term of five years. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Maharashtra initiated proceedings under S. 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for supersession of the Board of Directors by the issue of a show-cause notice dated 6/05/1989. The explanation furnished by the appellants and Respondent 6 who was also one of the Directors, against the proposed action was not found satisfactory and acceptable by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who, on 31/08/1989, made an order under S. 78 superseding the Board. A statutory appeal was taken before the government. That appeal
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
