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

2011 Supreme(All) 326

A.P.SAHI
SHIV MURTI VERMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Saroj Yadav and Ashwani K. Misra for the Petitioner; C.S.C., Rajeev Kr. Singh and Shailendra Kumar Pandey for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Saroj Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. The Assistant Registrar has proceeded to pass an order with regard to the registration of list of office bearers under the provisions of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basically the entire dispute was with regard to the election and continuance of office bearers, therefore, he ought to have referred the same to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. The contention, therefore, is that the Registrar has proceeded to decide the dispute for which he had no jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that on the findings that have been arrived at, the dispute arose with regard to the election of 2003. Apart from that periodical elections were held in 2006 and have now been held in 2009.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent elections would be dependent upon the decision of the disputes with regard to the elections of the y






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