SIDDAPPA, 5/0 MUTTAPPA DANGE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 19 Nov 2011
- Bench
- AJIT
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Mr. Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel for the petitioner would press into service the ruling of this Court in Writ Petition No.62116/2011 and connected matters decided on 19th November, 2011 wherein Section 98-I of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 fell consideration. In the…
Judgment
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADV.) PETITIONER AND: I. .
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1 THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, BELGAUM CAMP-BELGAUM DIST: BELGAUM THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHIKKODI TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM SHRI. LAXMI PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT ITNAL, T.Q RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM, REP BY ITS SECRETARY . . .RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.VIDYAVATHI, AGA FOR Ri TO R3. R4 SD) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 23/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RES. VIDE ANNEXURES-C AND D AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this writ petition, an individual i.e., the member of the society is questioning the registration of another society.
Operative part
Mr. Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel for the petitioner would press into service the ruling of this Court in Writ Petition No.62116/2011 and connected matters decided on 19th November, 2011 wherein Section 98-I of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 fell consideration. In the present writ petition, the society is not before the Court questioning the registration of the respondent society. It is only an individual i.e., member of the society. I am of the view that :3: grievance should be of the society and not any one member. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner does not have to question the registration of respondent society. Having said so, I am of the view that the question of interference does not arise. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/ JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 19 Nov 2011. The bench was AJIT.
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.