Remanded

Smt. Shamsunissa M. Ismail v. the Secretary / Chairman, Chebur Shreyas Co-Op. Soc Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2014WP/2274/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench remanded the matter back to the District Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration, directing him to address unconsidered contentions on jurisdiction and limitation and to record reasons, as the impugned order failed to do so.

What did the court decide?

Remand of the matter to the District Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration within six months after addressing unconsidered contentions and recording reasons.

Smt. Shamsunissa M. Ismail Vs the Secretary /… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc

¶2

4-WP-2274-14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2274 OF 2014

¶5

Smt. Shamsunissa M. Ismail	..	Petitioner
vs.
The Secretary / Chairman
Chembur Shreyas CHSL & Anr.	..	Respondents

¶6

Mr. M. N. Nikose for Petitioner. Ms Manjiri Parasnis for Respondent No. 1. Ms. P. S. Cardozo – AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 01 SEPTEMBER 2014

¶8

P.C . :-

¶9

1] The petitioner impugns the order dated 21 November 2013

¶10

made by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, dismissing his revision petition under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (said Act).

¶11

2] This Court, by its Order dated 31 October 2012 in writ petition no. 2158 of 2012 whilst setting aside the District Deputy Registrar's earlier order dated 13 January 2012, in this very revision petition, had directed the District Deputy Registrar to decide the matter afresh on merits and in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner complying with certain conditions as to deposit.

1/4

skc

4-WP-2274-14

3] The reason for such remand was that the District Deputy Registrar had not dealt with the petitioner's contentions with regard to the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 101 of the said Act as also the question of the claim being barred by the law of limitation.

¶16

4] There is no dispute that the petitioner has complied with the conditions as to deposit of amounts as prescribed, both under Section 154 of the Act as also by this Court in its order dated 31 October 2012.

¶17

5] On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the District Deputy Registrar has once again not even adverted to the petitioner's aforesaid contentions with regard to jurisdiction and limitation. This is unfortunate. The District Deputy Registrar is obliged to at least consider the Order of this Court dated 31 October 2012 by which the matter was remanded to. The order very clearly indicates that remand was necessitated on the earlier occasion, because the District Deputy Registrar failed to advert to the petitioner's contentions on the issue of jurisdiction and limitation. As such, in pursuance of remand, the District Deputy Registrar was obliged to advert to such contentions and decide them in accordance with law.

2/4

skc

4-WP-2274-14

6] Ms Parasnis, learned counsel for the Society however submitted that there is no provision prescribing any period of limitation for issuance of certificate under Section 101 of the said Act and further that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the said Act, do not apply.

¶22

7] At this stage, this Court is really not concerned with the merits or demerits of the contentions raised by either parties. What is important is that the District Deputy Registrar considers and decides such contentions in accordance with law. This was particularly necessary in the present case in view of the remand order dated 31 October 2012, which in fact required the District Deputy Registrar to take into consideration such contentions.

¶23

8] The impugned order also does not contain any reasons as such. It is settled position in law that quasi judicial authorities are duty bound to record reasons, howsoever brief, for their conclusions.

¶24

9] Accordingly, there is no option but to remand the matter to the District Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration in accordance with law. On this occasion, the District Deputy Registrar is specifically

3/4

skc

4-WP-2274-14

directed to advert to the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner as also the defence of the Society and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law. Further, District Deputy Registrar is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties.

¶29

10] Taking into consideration, the chequered history of the matter, it is only appropriate that the District Deputy Registrar decides the revision petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today.

¶30

11] Parties to appear before the District Deputy Registrar on 15 September 2014 at 11 a.m. and produce authenticated copy of this order. In view of this, there shall be no necessity of any fresh notice to the parties. All concerned to act on basis of authenticated copy of this Order.

¶31

12] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶33

Chandka

¶34

4/4

Smt. Shamsunissa M. Ismail v. the Secretary / Chairman, Chebur Shreyas Co-Op. Soc Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shamsunissa M. Ismail v. the Secretary / Chairman, Chebur Shreyas Co-Op. Soc Ltd. 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

Bombay Diocesan Trust Assn. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Rev. Dr. P. B. Amolik and Ors.

Mrs. Pooja Udya Aggarwal Vs Mr. Uday Nandlal Aggarwal and Anr.

Indiraraje Bhairavsinh Ghorpade Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Dy. Controller of Stamps and Ors.

Nikhil Suresh Palkar and Others Vs Shri Prithviraj Chavan and Others

Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Prakash D Mane

Deepak Natwarlal Parekh Vs Tejas Natwarlal Parekh