Disposed

Udayshankar Bansraj Mishra v. District Deputy Registrar - 4 and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2024WP/419/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition where a revision application was rejected on grounds of non-compliance with Section 154(2A) of M.C.S. Act. Court directed the Authority to consider existing funds and grant time if needed, while deciding the condonation of delay on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to deposit existing amount or additional funds if required within two weeks; condonation of delay application to be decided on merits.

Udayshankar Bansraj Mishra Vs District Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

47-wp-419-2018.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.419 OF 2018

¶5

SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN

¶6

Digitally signed bySHABNOOR AYUBPATHAN Date: 2024.04.0118:16:57 +0530

¶7

Udayshankar Bansraj Mishra … Petitioner V/s. District Deputy Registrar – 4 & Ors … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Vishnudutt Mishra i/by Mr. Sanjeet Shukla, for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. J. S. Suryavanshi, for Respondent No.3.

¶10

Mr. P. V. Nelson Ranjan, AGP for State/Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶11

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶12

DATED : APRIL 1, 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

The petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Revisional Authority rejecting petitioner’s Revision Application for non-compliance of Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (‘ M.C.S. Act’ ).

¶15

The Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, by the order dated 1 November 2010, issued certificate under Section 101 of M.C.S. Act in favour of respondent No.3 / Society. On 31 March 2011, the petitioner challenged the certificate under Section 101 of M.C.S. Act by filing Revision Application. The Revisional Authority, by the impugned order rejected the Revision Application

¶16

¶17

47-wp-419-2018.doc

¶18

on the ground of non-compliance of Section 154 (2A) of M.C.S. Act .

¶19

Learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the total amount of Rs.41,000/- along with interest lying in the saving account of the petitioner was deposited with the respondent No.3 / Society which can be utilized towards deposit under Section 154(2A) of M.C.S. Act . This issue will have to consider by the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority shall consider whether the amount lying with respondent No.3 / Society is more than requirement under Section 154(2A) of M.C.S. Act and, if the Revisional Authority comes to the conclusion that more amount is required to be deposited with respondent No.3 / Society, the Revisional Authority shall grant two weeks time to the petitioner to comply with Section 154(2A) of M.C.S. Act.

¶20

Moreover, if there is delay in filing the Revision Application, the petitioner to permit to file an application for condonation of delay for filing of Revision Application and on such application being filed by the petitioner, the Revisional Authority shall decide the application for condonation of delay of filing of Revision Application on its own merits.

¶21

With this clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶23

Udayshankar Bansraj Mishra v. District Deputy Registrar - 4 and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udayshankar Bansraj Mishra v. District Deputy Registrar - 4 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

Nazarali Nazar Husain Sayyed @ Sahil @Datta vs State of Maharashtra

Union of India through the Secretary and Ors. Vs Mumbai Shramik Sangh Adn Ors.

Mrs. Mujawar Munera Abul and Anr. Vs the Circle Officer Kabnoor and Ors.

Balasaheb Pandharinath Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Samir Tufel Taheer and Anr. Vs Shripati Ganpat Padwal Throu. Poa Prashant Prakash Jori and Ors.

Gramdevi Devasthan and Ors. Vs Gangotri Shopping Center Premises Co. Op Soc Ltd. and Ors.