Allowed

Mrs.Vijay Sharma and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Apr 2013WP/521/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners were disqualified by the society under Section 73FF(1)(iii) for not complying with an order to issue a duplicate share certificate and grant a no-objection certificate. The court held that the underlying objection grounds were complied with, leading to the dismissal of the disqualification.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). The disqualification of petitioners is quashed. No order as to costs.

Mrs.Vijay Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP.521.2013.14.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 521 OF 2013

¶4

VIJAY SHARMA AND ANR. :- PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. :- RESPONDENTS

¶5

Mr. R. G. Singh, for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. S. K. Shinde, i/b. Mr. Vivek Salunke, for Respondent No. 3.

¶7

CORAM :- RANJIT MORE,J. DATED :- APRIL 29, 2013

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

The Petitioners are Chairman and Secretary respectively of Golden Rock Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Cross Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 40 00 50. The Respondent No. 2, by his order dated 5^th November, 2012, gave direction to the Petitioners under the provisions of Section 79(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to issue duplicate copy of the share certificate in respect of Flat No. 902 and give no objection to transfer the same to Respondent No. 3. This order

¶10

was not complied by the Petitioners on various grounds and

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶13

WP.521.2013.14.doc

¶14

thereafter, Respondent No. 2, after following principle of natural justice, disqualified the Petitioners under the provisions of Section 73FF(1)(iii), for being elected as committee members, for contesting election etc. This order is impugned in the present Petition.

¶15

It was the stand of the Petitioners that the no-objection certificate/duplicate copy of the share certificate, in respect of Flat No. 902 cannot be given to Respondent No. 3 as it is objected by Respondent No. 3's mother.

¶16

Counsel for Respondent No. 3 pointed out that Respondent No. 3's mother has no objection for giving no-objection certificate to Respondent No. 3 to sale the said flat as well as for transfer of the same in the name of Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3, accordingly, was directed to give no-objection of her mother to the society in this regard. The no-objection, accordingly, was given to the said society by the mother of Respondent No. 3 and relying upon this certificate, the said society has issued duplicate share certificate in Respondent No. 3's name and also granted no-

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶19

WP.521.2013.14.doc

¶20

objection to Respondent No. 3 to sale the said flat. The xerox copy of the same are tendered in the Court, which are accepted and the same shall form part of the paper book.

¶21

Thus, the grounds of objection, on which the Petitioners were disqualified under the provisions of Section 73FF(1)(iii) are complied with by the Petitioners. In these circumstances, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

(RANJIT MORE,J.)

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

J.V.Salunke,PA

Mrs.Vijay Sharma and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Vijay Sharma and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

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

Bhaskar Baburao Kajale Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Vescube Infrastructure Ltd.

Axis Capital Limited Cin No. U51900MH2005PLC157853 Vs ------------

Axis Securites Limited Cin No. U74992MH2006PLC163204 Vs -----

Zenith Tins Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Darshan Developers and Anr. Vs the District Collector Mumbai City

Gracy Louis Hendriques Vs State of Maharashtra