Shri Suprabhat Chauksey vs State of M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(MP) 1082

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE, SHEEL NAGU
Shri Suprabhat Chauksey – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For appellant :Mr. Rohit Arya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil Mishra, Mr. Tapan Trivedi , Mr. Purushottam Rai, Advocate
For respondent No. 1, 2 , 3:Mr. R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate
For respondent No. 4: None
For respondent No. 6 to 8:Mr. V.K. Bharadwaj, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Bharadwaj, Advocate
For respondent No. 9:Mr. Ravindra Dixit, Advocate
For respondent No. 10:Mr. H.D. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Santosh Agrawal, Advocate
For respondent No. 11: None

JUDGMENT :

Sheel Nagu, J.:-

This writ appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 assails the final order dated 22.11. 2010 passed in W.P. No. 6019/2009 whereby while allowing the said petition the writ court has quashed the order dated 07/11/2009 of the State (Annexure P-1) by which allowing an appeal filed u/S. 40 of MP Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam 1973 (Adhiniyam for brevity) by quashing the order of the Registrar dated 19.06.2008 and remanding the matter to the Registrar for reconsideration of the issue concerned.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard at length.

3. Since the issue involves a checkered history it would be apt to deal with the factual matrix of the case in chronological manner;-

Date	Events
12.01.2008	General body meeting of the society held and it is resolved that due to expiry of 3 years, of tenure of 'governing body, in January, 2008, fresh election be held for conduction of which request be made to Assistant Registrar Firm and Society Gwalior.
14.01.2008

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(MP) 1082

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE, SHEEL NAGUShri Suprabhat Chauksey – AppellantVersusState of M. P. – Respondent

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE, SHEEL NAGU
Shri Suprabhat Chauksey – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent