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

2016 Supreme(Bom) 57

Z.A.HAQ
Bajarang Labour Cooperative Society – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the petitioners,
Smt. S.S. Jachak & Shri V.P. Gangane, A.G.Ps. for the respondent Nos.1 and 2,
Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  • Subject Matter: The case concerns Cooperative Societies, specifically regarding membership and registration under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
  • Statutory Provisions: The judgment relies on Section 23(1A), Section 154, Section 154(1), and Section 158 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
  • Delegation of Powers: The State Government delegated the powers of the Registrar to the District Deputy Registrar via a notification dated 11-09-2012, which is permissible under Section 158 of the Act.
  • Jurisdictional Issue: The Divisional Joint Registrar lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and decide revision applications filed by the Federation against orders passed by the District Deputy Registrar acting as a delegatee of the Registrar.
  • Outcome: The writ petitions were allowed; the impugned order by the Divisional Joint Registrar was set aside, and the order passed by the District Deputy Cooperative Societies was restored.
  • Judicial Precedent: The judgment cites the Supreme Court case Behari Kunj Sahakari Awas Samiti and another vs. State of U.P. regarding the powers of review versus revision.
  • Distinguishing Precedent: The court distinguished the current issue from the Full Bench judgment in Smt. Shireen Sami Gadiali and another vs. Spenta Co.op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., noting that the specific question of jurisdiction over a delegatee's order was not addressed in the earlier case.
  • Clarification: The court clarified that it did not examine the legality of the District Deputy Registrar's order itself, leaving room for further challenges in appropriate proceedings.

References: (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)


JUDGMENT :

1. These writ petitions can be disposed by common judgment as same issue is raised in all the petitions.

2. Heard Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Shri P.C. Madkholkar, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 and Smt. S.S. Jachak and Shri V.P. Gangane, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. The petitioners are the Labour Cooperative Societies registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1960). The petitioner societies applied to the respondent No.3 Nagpur District Labour Cooperative Societies Federation Limited requesting for grant of membership. It is the case of the petitioner societies that the respondent No.3-Federation had pointed out certain deficiencies in the applications submitted by the petitioner societies. According to the petitioner societies, they complied with the requirements and removed the deficiencies. According to the petitioner societies, the respondent No.3-Federation was required to communicate its decision on the applications submitted by the petitioner societies within sixty days as laid down by Section 23(1A) of the























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti VS State Of U. P. - 1997 7 Supreme 609: The provided text describes a legal principle regarding the Custodian General's inability to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act when an order has already been approved by the Assistant Custodian General (Custodian General's delegate). There are no keywords or phrases indicating any judicial treatment by subsequent decisions, such as "followed," "distinguished," "criticized," "questioned," "overruled," "reversed," or "abrogated." The treatment is entirely unclear based on the information provided, as it appears to be a standalone statement of law without reference to how it has been handled in later cases.

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