Dismissed

Alj Residency Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Zubeda Mukarab Khan and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2012WP/1988/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner society challenged orders directing it to return security deposits paid under Section 154(2-A) after its 101 certificate was quashed in a revision. The court held that without a valid certificate, the order to return the amount was justified and dismissed the writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions challenging the order to return the deposit were dismissed.

Alj Residency Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Zubeda… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

SNS

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1988 OF 2012

¶5

ALJ Residency Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. ...Petitioner/s. v/s. Zubeda Mukarab Khan and Ors. ..Respondent/s.

¶6

Mr. Pankaj Thatte for the petitioner/s. Ms P.S.Cardozo AGP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶8

DATED : 2^nd April, 2012.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner/society has challenged the order passed by the respondent no.2 on 7.12.2011. By the said order, the petitioner is directed to return the amount of Rs.69,282/- deposited by the respondent no.1 under Section 154 (2-A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960. Initially 101 certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner/society and against the respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 filed revision application under section 154 of the Co-operative Societies Act and in compliance with the provisions of sub-section 2-A, the respondent no.1 deposited the above amount which came to be withdrawn by the petitioner. 2 Admittedly, the respondent no.1’s Revision Application under Section 154 challenging 101 certificate is allowed. Consequently, 101 certificate in favour of the petitioner/society is quashed and set aside. It is

¶11

SNS

¶12

¶13

true that the matter is remanded back and the petitioner’s application is directed to be decided by the respondent no.2. However, the fact remains that there is no certificate under section 101 in favour of the petitioner. In these circumstances, respondent no.3 was justified in passing the impugned order thereby directing the petitioner/society to return the above amount to the respondent no.1. In view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the petition.

¶14

2 Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶16

SNS

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.1989 OF 2012

¶20

ALJ Residency Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. ...Petitioner/s. v/s. Zubeda Mukarab Khan and Ors. ..Respondent/s.

¶21

Mr. Pankaj Thatte for the petitioner/s. Ms P.S.Cardozo AGP for the State.

¶22

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 2^nd April, 2012.

¶23

P.C.:

¶24

By this petition, the petitioner/society has challenged the order passed by the respondent no.2 on 7.12.2011. By the said order, the petitioner is directed to return the amount of Rs.63,073/- deposited by the respondent no.1 under Section 154 (2-A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960. Initially 101 certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner/society and against the respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 filed revision application under section 154 of the Co-operative Societies Act and in compliance with the provisions of sub-section 2-A, the respondent no.1 deposited the above amount which came to be withdrawn by the petitioner. 2 Admittedly, the respondent no.1’s Revision Application under Section 154 challenging 101 certificate is allowed. Consequently, 101

¶25

¶26

SNS

¶27

certificate in favour of the petitioner/society is quashed and set aside. It is true that the matter is remanded back and the petitioner’s application is directed to be decided by the respondent no.2. However, the fact remains that there is no certificate under section 101 in favour of the petitioner. In these circumstances, respondent no.3 was justified in passing the impugned order thereby directing the petitioner/society to return the above amount to the respondent no.1. In view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the petition.

¶28

2 Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Alj Residency Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Zubeda Mukarab Khan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alj Residency Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Zubeda Mukarab Khan 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

Shakira Babasaheb Mulani Vs Babasaheb Abdul Mulani

Sambhaji Baburao Kolekar and Anr. Vs Govind Krishnaji Savekar and Ors.

Anil R. Sachdev and Ors. Vs Asm Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

Lokmanya Sra Co.Op. Hou. Soc. Ltd., through Secretary, Mr. Deepak Deshav Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra, Joint Registrar, Co.Op. Soc. Mumbai and Ors.

M/S. Famous Medical and General Stores, through Proprietor, Mr. Mohan Taraji Rathod Vs the Commissioner Food and Drug Administration, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through Deputy Director, Social Forestry, Sangli Vs Shri. Appaso Siddhu Mali