Dismissed

Damji K. Shah and Ors. v. Shri Vile Parle Gujarati Mandal Chs Ltd.

Bombay HC13 Apr 2012WP/591/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, filed by disputants in a co-operative society conflict, challenged the maintenance and jurisdiction of the trial court under the MCS Act. The petitioners sought to amend the dispute to implead additional accused members, though the High Court found this would alter the dispute's nature. The court dismissed the petition, noting alternative remedies existed under the Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

Damji K. Shah and Ors. Vs Shri Vile Parle Gujarati… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

srp

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 591 OF 2012

¶4

Damji K. Shah and Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus Shri. Vile Parle Gujarathi Mandal CHS Ltd ..Respondent.

¶5

Smt. Veena Parekh, petitioner no.3, present in-person. Smt. Mohita Merchant, petitioner no.4, present in-person. Ms. Lakshi Murali for Respondent.

¶6

Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : April 13, 2012 .

¶7

P. C. :

¶8

. Heard petitioner nos.3 and 4 appearing in person and learned counsel for the respondent Society.

¶9

The petitioners are the disputants in Dispute No. CC-IV/325 of 2008 filed before the 4^th Co-operative Court, Mumbai. The respondent is the opponent in said dispute. the dispute is filed under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 [for short “the MCS Act”] for the

¶10

1 of 5

¶11

patilsr

¶12

reliefs as stated under :

¶13

“(a) It be declared that the present dispute is maintainable u/s91 to 96 of the MCS Act, 1960 and hence this Hon’ble Court have exclusive jurisdiction to tray and entertain this dispute.

¶14

(b) It be declared that the accounts maintained by the opponent society since 2000 onwards are improper, illegal, bad-in-law and contrary to the provisions of MCS Act, 1960 and Rules made thereunder. (c) It be declared that the resolutions dated 30-1-2005, 19-3-2005, 14-8-2006, 29-7-2007 and 14-6-2008 passed by the opponent society in general body meetings in respect of collection of amounts towards the repairs and improvement funds is bad in law, exorbitant, improper and against the provisions of law.

¶15

(d) It be declared that the Circular dated Nil issued by the opponent society in general body meetings in respect of repair funds, expenditure and further collections are bad in law, improper, illegal and against the provisions of law.

¶16

(e) It be declared that since the office bearers of the opponent society are ceased to be committee members u.s.73(1) AB of MCS Act, 1960, the decisions, resolutions, circulars issued by the opponent society are improper, bad-in-law, invalid and against the provisions of law.

¶17

2 of 5

¶18

patilsr

¶19

(f) The opponent society be directed by the mandatory order of this Hon’ble Court to give inspection of all the documents, i.e., accounts, minutes, preliminary and final.

¶20

(g) copies of tenders, contract agreement, loan agreement, resolutions, circulars etc, passed in the meeting of the managing committee and general body since 2000 and onwards.”

¶21

The petitioners filed application being M.A.No.31 of 2011 in the aforesaid dispute for amendment of the dispute so as to implead 22 more opponents. The claim of the petitioners is that these opponents are the managing committee members of the earlier Committee and they have misappropriated the funds of the society. by this amendment, the disputants–petitioners herein want to recover that amount from the proposed opponents. This application was rejected by the trial Court. The petitioners filed revision, which also came to be dismissed and, therefore, the present writ petition.

¶22

I have perused the dispute application as well as proposed amendment. By the aforesaid dispute, the disputants–petitioners herein have challenged various

¶23

3 of 5

¶24

patilsr

¶25

resolutions dated 30-1-2005, 19-3-2005, 14-8-2006, 29-7-2007 and 14-6-2008 passed by the general body of the society in respect of collection of amounts towards the repairs and improvement funds. By the proposed amendment, the petitioners contend that the proposed respondents have misappropriated those funds and therefore prayer was made to recover that amount. In my opinion, the amendment will change the nature of the dispute and therefore same cannot be allowed.

¶26

Be that as it may, the petitioners have alternate remedy to proceed against the proposed opponents for alleged misappropriation of funds under section 83 of the MCS Act. Petitioner no.3 submitted that remedy under section 83 cannot be resorted as same can be initiated at the instance of 1/3^rd of the society members. Submission cannot be accepted. Even the Registrar suo moto can initiate this enquiry. The petitioners are always at liberty to satisfy the Registrar that he can suo moto initiate the enquiry under section 83 of the Act.

¶27

In pursuance of the orders passed in Writ Petition

¶28

4 of 5

¶29

patilsr

¶30

No.3835 of 2011, the hearing of above dispute filed by the petitioners is already expedited. The dispute is at the stage of hearing. The petitioners have approached the Co-operative Court at a very belated stage. On this count also, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I do not find any fault in the impugned orders of the Courts below. In the result, writ petition is dismissed.

¶31

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶32

5 of 5

¶33

patilsr

Damji K. Shah and Ors. v. Shri Vile Parle Gujarati Mandal Chs Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Damji K. Shah and Ors. v. Shri Vile Parle Gujarati Mandal Chs Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Maruti Garade and Ors. Vs Bapu Tuka Kalekar and Ors.

Bapu Tuka Kalekar and Ors., Vs Nilkanth Gopal Deshpande (Decd.)by Lrs.

Smt. Sudama Ramdhari Yadav through Power of Attorney Shri Sadanand Yadav Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar - Co-Operative Societies

Shri. Rajesh Anilkumar Makhecha and Ors. Vs Shri. Pandurang Hasha Patil and Ors.

Agrani Yantramag Vinkar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Malangaon and Ors. Vs Sangli Dist. Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Sangli