Remanded

Abubakar Umar Memon v. Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Society and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jul 2008WP/1535/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a revision order remanding a registration dispute to the Divisional Joint Registrar. The High Court, invoking interests of justice, directed remand to the original Deputy Registrar for fresh hearing of both parties within eight weeks, all while maintaining the status quo of the property.

What did the court decide?

Remanded to the original Authority for fresh decision after hearing both sides within eight weeks, maintaining status quo of property.

Abubakar Umar Memon Vs Deputy Registrar Co-Operative… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 1535 OF 2008

¶4

 Abubakar Umar Memon ..Petitioner

¶5

 versus

¶6

 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
 Society, G/North Ward, Mumbai
 & Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

 Mr. S. M. Ghorwadkar with Mr. P. J.
 Ramchandani for the Petitioner.

¶8

 Mr. R. R. Bhosale, AGP for the Respondent No. 3
 - State.

¶9

 Mr. S. K. Shinde for the Respondent No. 4.

¶10

CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J.

¶11

 DATE : 22ND JULY, 2008.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

 . By this petition the petitioner has
 challenged the Order dated 26.5.2008, by which the
 Minister of Co-operation has set aside the Order
 dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Divisional Joint
 Registrar, Co-operative Society, Mumbai, and the
 matter has been remanded back to the Divisional
 Joint Registrar for re-hearing.

¶14

 2. The dispute between the parties is about the

¶15

:2:

¶16

 registration of the respondent No.4 society.
 According to the petitioner who claims to be the
 landlady, her consent was not obtained before the
 registration was granted to the respondent No.4
 society by the Deputy Registrar and was not heard.
 The petitioner therefore preferred an Appeal under
 Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative
 Societies Act. The Appellate Authority apparently
 decided the matter without hearing the respondent
 Nos. 4 and 5. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5
 therefore preferred a Revision, before the Minister
 for Co-operation. The Revisional Authority has set
 aside the order of the Appellate Authority and has
 remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority
 for a fresh decision. Apparently, the Revisional
 Authority has mainly relied on the fact that the
 respondent was not heard by the Appellate Authority.
 In principle there is no reason to interfere with
 the order of the Revisional Authority since it
 cannot be denied that both parties to the lis should
 be heard. However, from the circumstances of the
 case, it is clear that the grievance of the
 petitioner is that the petitioner was not heard
 before the original order of registration of the
 respondent No.4 society was passed. This fact is
 not disputed by the learned counsel for the

¶17

:3:

¶18

 respondents.

¶19

 3. In the circumstances, it would be
 appropriate in the interest of justice to direct
 that instead of there being a remand to the
 Divisional Joint Registrar, who is an Appellate
 Authority, there should be a remand to the original
 Authority i.e. the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
 Society, who shall decide the matter afresh after
 hearing both the sides, within eight weeks from
 today. All contentions of both the sides shall be

¶20

 open for decision. In the meanwhile the parties
 shall maintain status quo as regards the property in

¶21

 question. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(S. A. BOBDE, J.)

Abubakar Umar Memon v. Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Society and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abubakar Umar Memon v. Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Society and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

shri gajanan gopal mali Vs the director, m/s phonix mills Ltd. and Anr.

shri sahadev bapu parab Vs the director,m/s phonix mills Ltd.

Prasad S Dongaonkar Vs the Presiding Officer School Tribunal and Ors.

M/S. Agarwal Traders Proprietor of Navyug Processes and Anr.. Vs Ankush M. Bhabal and 8 Ors.

Bharat Insulation Co. (India) Ltd. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

M/S. Twenty First Century Printers Ltd. Vs Shri K.P.Abraham and Anr.