SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Bom) 989

N.P.CHAPALGAONKER, B.H.MARLAPALLE, R.M.LODHA, J.A.PATIL
Secretary and another – Appellant
Versus
Chintamani Birjaprasad Dubey and others – Respondent


JUDGMENT -R.M. LODHA, J.:---These two writ petitions involve common question of law relating to sections 91 and 92 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and, therefore, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by common order.

2.For the sake of convenience I intend to refer to the facts of Writ Petition No. 2640 of 1984. The petitioner is the original disputant under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "Co-operative Societies Act"). The disputant is registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. The respondent No. 1 is also a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and respondent No. 2 is the District Central Co-operative Bank which too is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. It is the case of the disputant that it carries on business in wholesale of fertilisers. The disputant appointed the respondent No. 1 as sub seller of the fertilisers as per the terms and conditions of letter dated 17-6-1968. According to the terms and conditions of the said agreement the disputant supplied the fertiliser to the respondent No. 1 on credit for sale. Respondent No 2 stood gu





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top