Back
1990 Supreme(SC) 826
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T. Kochu Thommen, R.M. Sahai, JJ.
Ashok Ghosh & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Ishwar Bhavan Coop. Housing Society Limited and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No 1612 of 1990 (Arising out of SLP no 4715 of 1990).
Decided On : 21-3-1990
The absence of a reasoned judgment from the High Court led to the remittance of the case for consideration of all the facts and the law arising in the case.
Headnote:
Section 91 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - The court remitted the case to the High Court for consideration of all the facts and the law arising in the case due to the absence of a reasoned judgment from the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's Writ Petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court without providing any reasons. The appellant contended that Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was not attracted to the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it unfortunate that the High Court did not provide a reasoned judgment and remitted the case back to the High Court for consideration of all the facts and the law arising in the case. The court also ordered that the status quo as of today shall be maintained till the disposal of the case by the High Court.
Issues: The absence of a reasoned judgment from the High Court and the applicability of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a reasoned judgment from the High Court led the court to set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the High Court for consideration of all the facts and the law arising in the case.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of accordingly with no costs.
ORDER :
1. Special leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appellants' Writ Petition No. 5299/89 in limine. The order of the High Court contains no reason . It was the contention of the 1st appellant that Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was not attracted by the facts of this case. According to him, he was inducted into the premises by the sister-in-law of one of the Members of the Co-operative Society. The respondents contended that the 1st appellant had no right whatsoever to remain in the premises and that he had not been inducted into by any competent person. It was further contended by the respondents that the 1st appellant paid no rent to the Member. The Cooperative Court found that Section 91 of the Act was attracted. That finding was affirmed by the Tribunal. But neither the Cooperative Court nor the Tribunal discussed or determined the jurisdictional facts to come to a finding that Section 91 of the Act was attracted. There is no finding by the High Court as regards the status of the 1st appellant. Was he a trespasser or a lessee or a person inducted into the premises by someone who had the right to do so? There is a finding by the Cooperative Court and the Tribunal that the 1st appellant was a trespasser, and, if that is so, that crucial question does not appear to have been noticed by the High Court. There is no discussion on any point in the order of the High Court. The High Court merely dismissed the Writ Petition in limine without giving any reasons.
3. It is unfortunate that we do not have the advantage of a reasoned judgment of the High Court. In a matter of this importance, it would have been of invaluable help to the appellate court had the High Court expressed the reasons for dismissing the Writ Petition.
4. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the case to that Court for consideration of all the facts and the law arising in this case. We make it clear that the status quo as of today shall be maintained till the disposal of the case by the High Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
