Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR
Pankaj Subhash Tatar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
AMIT BORKAR, J.
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners question the legality and validity of the order passed by respondent No.1, whereby the order dated 22 April 2020 was set aside and the levy of costs under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was confirmed in relation to an inquiry conducted under Section 83 of the said Act.
2. The background facts are these. The petitioners are former and existing members of the Managing Committee of respondent No.4 society. On the support and instance of respondent Nos.12 to 15, the petitioners came to be elected to the Managing Committee for the terms 2017 to 2022 and 2022 to 2027.
3. On a complaint lodged by respondent Nos.12 to 15, an Authorised Officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act. The Authorised Officer submitted his report on 31 March 2018. In the said report, he recorded a prima facie finding that the petitioners were responsible for delay in securing the compensation amount from HDFC Insurance Company Limited under the HDFC Grameen Savings Scheme. On that basis, the Authorised Officer held the petitioners liable for expenses quantified at Rs.25,000 under
Costs for inquiries must be assigned based on final adjudications; imposing costs on those exonerated lacks legal justification and contradicts fair process principles.
Procedure for conduct of inquiry and inspection - A person can be proceeded against and vested with liability only if an objective assessment of evidence and materials available on record leads to ir....
The impugned order granting 15 days to submit rectification of defects was not violative of Section 82, and an opportunity of rectification under Section 82 is not a condition precedent for ordering ....
The Registrar has the discretion to order an inquiry into the affairs of a society based on a complaint by a non-member, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960.
Liability under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act must be fixed individually, not jointly, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.
An expert director without voting rights cannot be held liable for damages under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act due to lack of involvement in management decisions.
Findings in re-audit reports under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act do not constitute a 'decision' or 'order' and are not subject to revision under Section 154.
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
