Ratnakar Nanu Ramane & Ors. v. Subhash Krishna Ramane & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Remanded
quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Mr.Venegaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Divisional Joint Registrar has misread the order of this court passed in Writ Petition No.5997 of 2004. There was no direction in the said order to give hearing to respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr.Venegaonkar further…
Judgment
. Heard Mr.Venegaokar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Dalvi, learned counsel for respondent no.9 and Mr.Palekar, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.11 and 12.
Operative part
The petitioners have impugned the order dated 6.8.2004 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar by which the order passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 22.7.2004 has been quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded for hearing afresh. The operative part of the order reads thus: . "The Appeal is hereby partly 2 2 2 allowed. . The impugned order dated 22.7.2004 passed by Respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. . The matter is remanded back for a fresh trial with direction to the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to decide the matter within 2 months from the date of this order with sufficient opportunity of being heard to the all necessary parties as per order passed by Hon’ble High Court No. W.P.No.19824/04 with effective and meaningful consultation with the Federal Society".
Mr.Venegaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Divisional Joint Registrar has misread the order of this court passed in Writ Petition No.5997 of 2004. There was no direction in the said order to give hearing to respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr.Venegaonkar further submits that respondent nos.1 to 4 were never members of the Managing Committee and, therefore, 3 3 3 notice under section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") to them was not necessary. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent controverted the said assertion and contended that they would be necessary parties to the proceedings. I do not wish to enter into the controversy whether or not respondent nos.1 to 4 are the members of the Managing Committee. In my opinion, the interest of justice would be satisfied if the petitioners are allowed to raise such plea before the Assistant Registrar, who will be hearing the matter afresh in view of the directions given by the Divisional Joint Registrar by its order dated 6.8.2004. Order accordingly. Needless to say that if such contentions is urged the same need not be dealt with separately. The Assistant Registrar shall record his findings on this issue while passing final orders in the proceedings. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 78.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 08 Sep 2004. The bench was D B BHOSALE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.