Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
No Confidence Motion under West Bengal Co-Operative Societies Act - Section 31(5) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, stipulates that if a no-confidence motion against the Board of Directors is successful, the Board stands dissolved immediately. The process involves moving the motion by delegates, and success leads to dissolution of the Board (Sources: Bhulunuddin Farazi & ors. vs The State of West Bengal & ors. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2920, Susanta Mondal vs State of West Bengal - 2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 268, Katam Kasi Raju VS State of Andhra Praedsh - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1544, P Bhaskar Reddy VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 122).
Legal Procedure and Challenges - The motion must be properly noticed and conducted according to rules. For instance, under Rule 21 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011, and Section 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, adequate notice (minimum 30 days) is mandatory. Challenges to no-confidence motions often arise if procedural requirements are not met, such as improper notices or ignoring provisions like Section 59A of Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, which governs officers' motions of no confidence (Sources: SHRI. TAMMANNA LAKSHMAN NAIK vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38281, Ramchandra G. N Mule VS Registrar of Cooperative Societies - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1785, Katam Kasi Raju VS State of Andhra Praedsh - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1544, Susanta Mondal vs State of West Bengal - 2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 268, P Bhaskar Reddy VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 122).
Judicial Interpretation and Disputes - Courts have emphasized that the purpose of notice is to inform members and ensure transparency. For example, the West Bengal courts have held that the notice of no-confidence should be clear and in accordance with statutory provisions. Disputes often involve whether proper procedures were followed, whether the motion was validly passed, and whether the Board was rightly dissolved following the motion (Sources: Bhulunuddin Farazi & ors. vs The State of West Bengal & ors. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2920, P Bhaskar Reddy VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 122, Brijesh Kumar Singh VS Central Registrar Co-Operative - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 848).
Specific Case Examples - In some cases, motions were challenged on procedural grounds, such as lack of opportunity for representation or improper notices, leading courts to scrutinize compliance with statutory requirements. For instance, in the West Bengal context, motions that did not follow proper notice procedures or where the meeting was not held as per rules were deemed invalid (Sources: Bhulunuddin Farazi & ors. vs The State of West Bengal & ors. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2920, Brijesh Kumar Singh VS Central Registrar Co-Operative - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 848, Vikram Constructions VS Anustup Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1496).
Analysis and Conclusion:The judgment on a no-confidence motion under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act hinges on strict adherence to procedural rules, including proper notice, conduct of meetings, and compliance with statutory provisions like Section 31(5). Successful motions lead to immediate dissolution of the Board, but such actions are subject to judicial scrutiny if procedural irregularities are alleged. Courts generally uphold the validity of motions that follow due process, emphasizing transparency and fairness in the process (References: Bhulunuddin Farazi & ors. vs The State of West Bengal & ors. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2920, Katam Kasi Raju VS State of Andhra Praedsh - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1544, P Bhaskar Reddy VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 122).
In the democratic world of co-operative societies, maintaining accountability among elected office bearers is crucial. A no confidence motion serves as a key tool for members or directors to express dissatisfaction and potentially remove leaders who have lost their support. But what does the law say? Specifically, under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (and its amendments, including the 2006 Act), how is a no confidence motion governed? This blog dives deep into the legal framework, procedures, judicial interpretations, and practical tips, drawing from key judgments and statutory provisions.
Whether you're a member of a co-operative society in West Bengal, an office bearer, or simply interested in coop governance, understanding these rules can prevent disputes and ensure smooth operations. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and statutes; consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your situation.
The West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, provides explicit mechanisms for such motions, primarily under Sections 36 and 73-1D, along with related rules. These provisions recognize no confidence motions as a democratic way to remove elected office bearers like the President or Chairman of the managing body. A valid motion can lead to immediate vacation of office, provided all statutory conditions are met. Babul Das VS State of Assam - 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 1496
For instance, Section 36 addresses the removal of the President of the Board of Directors through a no confidence motion supported by the prescribed majority. Babul Das VS State of Assam - 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 1496 This underscores the Act's emphasis on member-driven governance, aligning with broader co-operative principles of autonomy and democracy, as highlighted in cases emphasizing respect for general body decisions. Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. VS Aloke Kumar - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1070
In the absence of explicit provisions, courts have ruled that managing committees lack inherent power to initiate such motions before a term expires. Hindurao Balwant Patil & others VS Krishnarao Parshuram Patil & others - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 164 This prevents arbitrary actions and ensures adherence to bye-laws and statutes.
Bringing a no confidence motion requires strict procedural compliance:
Failure here can invalidate the motion. For example, judgments stress that mere presence without voting doesn't bolster the motion. NOWDA THANA CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY VS W. B. CO-OP. TRIBUNAL - 1979 0 Supreme(Cal) 217
To stand up in court, a motion must tick these boxes:
Once passed validly, the office bearer vacates immediately, triggering bye-law-based vacancy filling. Babul Das VS State of Assam - 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 1496ANJAN CHOUDHURY VS ANANDANEER CO-OPERATIVE REGISTEREDHOUSING SOCIETY - 1990 0 Supreme(Cal) 144
Courts in West Bengal and analogous jurisdictions have clarified these principles through landmark rulings:
These align with broader coop jurisprudence. For example, in a redevelopment dispute, the Supreme Court stressed respecting general body decisions under the Act, promoting democratic functioning. Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. VS Aloke Kumar - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1070 The decisions of the General Body of a Co-operative Society, approved in accordance with the Act and Rules, should be respected and implemented... This principle extends to no confidence scenarios, reinforcing member authority.
Related disputes under the Act, such as recovery proceedings or disciplinary actions, also highlight procedural rigor. In a certificate recovery case, courts upheld awards under Section 96 as 'public demands' recoverable via the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, showing the Act's robust enforcement mechanisms. KSHETRIYA SHREE GANDHI ASHRAM VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2006 Supreme(Cal) 110 Similarly, disciplinary proceedings against employees must follow mandatory rules like Rule 48(f) of the 1987 Rules, which are saved post-repeal. Asim Kumar Hajrah VS State of West Bengal - 2013 Supreme(Cal) 828
While not directly on no confidence, these cases illustrate the judiciary's insistence on compliance, applicable by analogy to motions. Other judgments touch on society autonomy in ferries or property, but core governance remains procedure-bound. Nabadwip Jalapath Paribahan Co-Operative Society Ltd. VS State of West Bengal - 2017 Supreme(Cal) 938AUDREY CHRISTINNE BHATTACHARYYA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2016 Supreme(Cal) 711
Not all motions succeed:
In disputes, courts scrutinize compliance minutely. For vehicle registration post-loan default, authorities must act statutorily without extraneous hurdles—mirroring motion validity tests. Contai Co-operative Bank Ltd. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2007 Supreme(Cal) 129
To navigate successfully:
In contentious cases, arbitration under Section 95 or court intervention may follow, as seen in various coop disputes. Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. VS Aloke Kumar - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1070
Co-operative societies embody collective effort—use these tools responsibly to foster trust. For specific scenarios, professional legal counsel is essential, as laws evolve and facts vary.
This post references judgments like Babul Das VS State of Assam - 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 1496, NOWDA THANA CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY VS W. B. CO-OP. TRIBUNAL - 1979 0 Supreme(Cal) 217, Jayprakash S/o. Raosaheb Salunke and others VS State of Maharashtra and others - 2000 0 Supreme(Bom) 360, Hindurao Balwant Patil & others VS Krishnarao Parshuram Patil & others - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 164, ANJAN CHOUDHURY VS ANANDANEER CO-OPERATIVE REGISTEREDHOUSING SOCIETY - 1990 0 Supreme(Cal) 144, Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. VS Aloke Kumar - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1070, and others for illustrative purposes only.
#WBCoOpAct #NoConfidenceMotion #CoopLaw
Pursuant thereto, in terms of the provision contained in Section 31 (5) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) in absence of the Chief Executive Officer of the Society the Manager of the Society was directed ... Nayek, learned advocate appears on behalf of the West Bengal Cooperative Election Commission. ... Seng....
The petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act before respondent No.2-Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Mysuru Region. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 29-H of the Karnataka CoOperative Societies Act, 1959, if earlier a no-c....
The Appellant Society was registered in the year 1945 under the Act 1940 (now governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 as amended up to date, [for short, ‘the Act 2006’]). ... The proceedings came to be registered as the Dispute Case No. 47/RCS of 2002-03 filed under Section 95(1) of the West Bengal Co-op....
Section 34 -A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, the Act) stipulates that the Competent Authority shall give to the members Notice of not less than 30 clear days of meeting. The relevant portion of 3. ... Section 34-A has been inserted by the Amending Act No. 21 of 1985, providing for consideration of a motion of no-confidence on the Pres....
He places Rule 44 (f) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). ... Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, raised the following points : (i) The notice calling for the special resolution indicated only an action under Section 31(1)(b) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies #HL_STA....
Sec. 59-A of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 reads as follows:- "[59 A Motion of no confidence against officers of societies.- (1) A President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, treasurer or any other officer, by whatever designation called, who holds ... Still, the Assistant Registrar deputed to oversee the special meeting, decided that the motion#HL....
Out of nine members of the Board, six members voted in favour of the 'no confidence motion' and only one member voted against the 'no confidence motion' and the first petitioner was absent. ... State, AIR 1966 Calcutta 23 , was considering the question, whether a Cooperative Society, registered under the Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1940, or its Managing Committee ....
As a matter of fact, the provision contained in Section 95 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 is pari material with the provision contained in Section 102 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006. ... Under Section 86 (1) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies#....
It has also been interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court that purpose and object of giving notice of consideration of no confidence motion is only to give due intimation to the members or information of the proposed meeting. ... The District Cooperative Officer acting as the Joint Registrar is having power to entertain notice of no confidence motion and issued notice under Section 34-A of the ....
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 29-H of the Karnataka Co- Operative Societies Act, 1959, if earlier a no-confidence motion was defeated, then ... The petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act before respondent No.2-Deputy R....
The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under West Bengal Co-Operative Societies Act. 2. The case of the petition in brief is as follows:- The petitioner society since its inception in the year 1982 had been successfully operating and managing the affairs of the Nabadwip Ferry Ghat. The object of the petitioner society is to provide facilities for operating water transport, boats and other country crafts as well as other public conveyances.
Being such a member, she was allowed to own a unit/flat (No. N-3) in the building owned by the Co-operative Society. She was a member of the Vidyasagar Samabaya Abasan Samity Ltd. a "Co-operative Society under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006.
In order to answer the question relating to the maintainability of the writ petition, it is necessary to refer to the relevant portion of section 6 of the 2006 Act which came into effect on 18th January, 2011 repealing 1983 Act, which is set out hereunder:- 6. Repeal and savings.—(1) (2) Notwithstanding such repeal anything done or suffered or any action taken including any rule made, and transaction entered into, any notification or notice issued with prospective or retrospective effect, any ....
It is aggrieved by the order of the Registering Authority, M. V. Department, Paschim Medinipur dated November 20,2006, relevant portion whereof is : "In connection with the above mentioned subject, this to inform you that as the R.O. of the vehicle has raised strong objection against transfer of ownership and as you have not produced any order of any Hon'ble Court regarding transfer of property, so you are directed to submit the order of the Hon'ble Court to this authority in support of transf....
Thus, the conditions for recovery of such awarded amount by the respondent No. 4 under Section 132 of the said act, are satisfied in the instant case. ( 25 ) UNDISPUTEDLY the respondent No. 4 is a Co-operative Society registered under West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. It is also an admitted position that certain amount is payable by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4 herein under the award.
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
