Dismissed

Depak Virani v. Si Mangal Enterprises and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Apr 2010APP/473/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two appeals challenging an order of the Learned Single Judge regarding resolution disputes within a Co-operative Society. The Court held that no interference was called for as the Society's resolution was ratified by the general body, no obstruction was established by few members, and the lower court had protected member interests. Both appeals were rejected.

What did the court decide?

Appeals were rejected. Notice of motion No.3706 of 2009 was disposed of.

Depak Virani Vs Si Mangal Enterprises and Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL NO.473 OF 2009

¶5

IN

¶6

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2483 OF 2008

¶7

IN

¶8

SUIT NO.2136 OF 2008

¶9

Deepak Virani

¶10

...Appellant

¶11

v/s

¶12

Sai Mangal Enterprises and ors.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Mr Nimish Desai for Appellant.

¶15

Mr A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Counsel with Mr Girish Pandit
for Respondents.

¶16

WITH

¶17

APPEAL NO.525 OF 2009

¶18

IN

¶19

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2483 OF 2008

¶20

IN

¶21

SUIT NO.2136 OF 2008

¶22

¶23

Jyoti U. Sonpal and anr. ...Appellants

¶24

v/s

¶25

Sai Mangal Enterprises and ors....Respondents

¶26

Mr Vinay Hegde for Appellants.

¶27

Mr A.Y. Skhare, Sr. Counsel with Mr Girish Pandit
for Respondents.

¶28

CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.V. MORE JJ.

¶29

DATE : 28TH APRIL 2010.

¶30

P.C.:-

¶31

1]By both these appeals, the same order

¶32

passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged.

¶33

The appellants are members of a Co-operative
Society. The appellant in appeal No.473 of 2009 who

¶34

has admittedly entered into an agreement for
development and the Society has passed resolutions
affirming that agreement. We have been informed
that those resolutions were challenged in the Co-

¶35

operative Court. They were not in a position to
secure any interim order in relation to the

¶36

¶37

resolutions. In our opinion, considering that

¶38

Society is the owner of the property, that the
Society has entered into an agreement and the
agreements have been ratified by the general body of

¶39

the Society and only few members are causing
obstructions, no exception can be taken to the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned

¶40

Single Judge has also taken care to protect interest
of the members of the Society. In this view of the

¶41

matter, therefore, no interference is called for in
the order impugned. Appeals are rejected. Notice
of motion No.3706 of 2009 taken out in appeal No.473
of 2009 is disposed off.

¶42

Parties to act on the copy of this order

¶43

duly authenticated by the Associate / Private
Secretary of this Court.

¶44

Certified copy expedited.

¶45

(JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH)

¶46

(JUSTICE R.V. MORE)

Depak Virani v. Si Mangal Enterprises and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Depak Virani v. Si Mangal Enterprises and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharamdas Manilal Jhaveri Vs Semcon Electronics Pvt. and Anr.

Shahenshabegum Alias Sona Diljag Vs Rehana Nasruddin Abul Karim and Ors.

Anthony George Dsouza and Anr. Vs Mrs. Anna Isabella Rana @ Nancy Rana and Ors.

1. Mumtaz Haji Sayani, Mumbai and 5 Others. Vs Amirali Fazalbhoy, Mumbai and 11 Others.

suhas shripal gadre Vs m/s tata infro media Ltd.

Jyoti U. Sonpal and Anr. Vs Sai Mangal Enterprises and Ors.