Writ petition challenged cessation of petitioner as society president under Section 21AA(1)(b) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act. Court held that prior enquiry under Section 51 or surcharge under Section 60 is not mandatory for such action. Dismissed petition on ground of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 76.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32e6 ]
/
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 24514 OF 2022
Between
M. Laxminarsimha Reddy, S/o Late RamachandraReddy, aged about 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o 3-194, ChandupatlaVillage, Bhuvangiri Mandal,Yadadri, Telangana.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedtherewith,the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directionmore particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Certiorari bycallingfor the records pertaining to impugned proceedings vide No.RC NO.554l22lYBlC dated 31st May,2022passedby the 4th respondent aspatently illegal, beingpassed without statutoryenquiry, arbitrary, being contrary to the TelanganaCooperative SocietiesAct' 1964 (TCS Act) and violation of Articles 14,21 of the Conslitutionof lndiaand against the principles of natural justice and consequently and set aside theimpugned order vide No.R.C.No.554t22lYBlC dated 31-05-2022passed by the 4th respondent against thepetitioner.
|..1,
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition uncle r Sectton 151 CPCpraying thatin thecin- umstancesstated in the affidavit filerl n supporl of thepetition, the HighCourt 'nay be pleasedto SUSPEND the lmptryned Order VideNo. RCNo 554/22lYB/tl jatt-'d. 31-05-2022 passed by the 4th rc sSrondent against the Petitionerpr:ndingt: isplsal of the writ petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Between
The Primary Aglric ul:ural Cooperative Society, Chanduplala, illar;e, Bhuvanagiri It/andal,yactaO.i l)is;trict, Rep. by its PresidentA.tVlallaRedt:y S,/o.LateA Ram Chandra Reddy, ;:3ed about 72years, Rl/o.NeredmettMalkajg -i D strict.
....PETllONERY Rt:SPONDENT NO.2
And
...RESPONDENTS/R ESPONDENTS
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the crr;um stances stated in the affidavit filed ir :;upport of the petition, the High Cour ntay bepleased to vacate the order datr d 0810612022passed in l.A.No. 1 of 2022 in \V.P.No.24514 of 2022 and consequ:rtly dismiss the writ petition.
lA NO: 3 OF 2022
Between
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT Nos.1,3&4 in W.P
And
...RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER
....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.2 lN W.P.
Petition under Section 15'1 CPCpraying thatin the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,the High Court may be pleasedto vacate the interim ordergranted on08.06.2022in I.A.No.l of 2022 in W.P.No.24514 of 2022 and dismissthe Writ Petitionas devoid of merits.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. SN VEERENDERSINGH
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1,3 &4: Ms G JYOTHIKIRAN FOR GP FOR COOPERATION
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRID GOVERDHANACHARY
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BT,E SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
1/RIT PETITION No.24514 of 2022
ORDER:
Thts rvrit pet ticn carne to be filed seeking to ir,rsue a Writ of Certiorari calling fr r the records pertaining to irnpugn::d proceedings vide Rc.No.55+ l'2') IYB lC dated 31.05.2022 issued by respondent No.4 as ilLegal :rrl> trary, oontrary to the provisions r,f the Telangana Cooperative Socie t:, s Act, 1964 (for short "the Act") antl atso violative of Articles 14 arrcL 2 1 of the Constitution of Lrdia arrd violative of principles of natLrr. I justice ald consequently prayed t:r sr:t aside the impugned procecrl ir Lgs.
The case oi t I e petitioner is that heq,as elccted z: s I)resident of the Priman' Agric - ltural Cooperatrve Society, Ohrln J r.Lpatla Village, Bhuvangiri Manrli,Ll. Yacladri Bhuvanagiri District i.e., r'e r;pcndent No.2 herein, and hr' is rlis;cl-rarging duties strictly in conf tr.mit.y with the provisions of tl-re Ar t and the Telanga::ra Cooperatii,e Slrcit:ties Rules, 1964 (for short "thc Ftules"). The District Cooper,etive O lficer, Yadadri Bhuvanagri Distric . respondent No.4 herein, has issut.d a r;hou' cause notice vide Rcr.Nc.,;54t'22 IYBIC dated 16.05.2022 l:esing on the complaint of Vrcr-' [)'esidenl and majority of the rnanz ging committee
?
members of the society alleging that after verification of the records found that the petitioner incurred lakhs of rupees without approval/resolution of the managing committee of the society and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken under Secrion 2IAA(1)(b) of the Act disqualifying him as per the Byelaws of the society. It is the further case of the petitioner that after receipt of the said show cause notice, he has submitted an explanation on the file of respondent No.4 dated 30.05.2022 inter alia stating that he has not misused any funds of the society nor acquired any property of the society for his personal gains arld that the said show cause notice was issued to the petitioner without conducting any enquiry and there is no evidence on record to prove that the petitioner has misused the property of the society for his personal gains and thus denied all the allegations of the show cause notice. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that without conducting any enquiry under Section 51 of the Act followed by surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act giving an opportunity to the petitioner, and violating the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act, respondent No.4 has issued the impugned proceedings dated 31.05.2022 under Section 21AA(l)(b) of the Act declaring that he shall cease to hold office of respondent No.2/society with effect from 3LO5.2O22, for the residue of his term of office, and further held that \
3
he shall a.1so be inr li11ible for being chosen as or tbr br.rrLg rr member of the committec thr, )ugh election or cooption for the: sr_rbsrequent two terms.
4
part of the petitioner a,d foilowed by surcharge proceedings under Section 6O of the Act by giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the very procedure adopted by respondent No.4 is contrary to the various judgments of this court as well as the Apex court a,d as such the impugned proceedings suffers from non-application of mind leading to arbitrary action on the part of respondent No.4 for removal of the elected president of respondent No.2/society. The petitioner also placed reliance upon various judgments to substaltiate his contention that without conducting a regular enquiry, he was found guilty of charges of the show cause notice which is not permissibre in law and the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities calling for interference of this court under Articre 226 of the constitution of India.
5
satisfied that th,r rrocedure adopted by the responcle rts is in gross violation of ttre pr nciples of natural justice. In sup p,rrt of the said contention, the pr:.itioner also placed reliance rrpon t..re .iudgment of the Apex Court ir-r h': case ol-Magadh Sugar & Enerf y Ltd. vs. State Of Bihar and oth ersr r.r,herein the Apex Court u,hile reiteral.ing the principle that a..t,: rr.al.ive remedy cioes not bar i,hr' Hig;h Court to exercise thejtLrisdi:tion under Article 226 of the Crtn st tu -ion of India held that tl-re tesr. t rat is to be applied for the de -elmination of a question of larv : s whether the rights of the partir:s br:fot'e the court can be deterrrrinr:d without reference to the fact-ual lic,:nzLrio. In the case referred supr r, the issue was relating to detol n inittion of the meaning of tht' phr rs.es used in Section 3 of the Bilrar I:)1e<:tricity Duty Act to determine il tt e supplv of electricity by the app ellar.t rvould fall within its ambit.
1 2021 scc onLine 5701 /
6
passed as continuing the petitioner is detrimental to the interest of the society. Further it is also stated that they are also contemplating action under Section 60 of the Act for recovery of misappropriated amounts by the petitioner. However, with a mala fi.d.e intention to prevent the enquiry to proceed with recovery of the misutilized a-rnounts, the petitioner has approached this court instead of availing efficacious remedy of hling of an appeal before the Tribunal. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit is that in view of the right created by the statute which prescribes remedy of appea] for enforcing the right or liability, the petitioner must resort to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy available under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Since the petitioner has not availed alternative remedy as provided under the Statute, the writ petition as filed at the threshold without exhausting the remedies under the Act is misconceived. Further it is also contended that the case relied upon by the petitioner in W.P.No.4l92 of 2OO5 is pending for enquiry, but in the present case the respondents have passed an order under Section 21AA(1)(b) of the Act. So far as the recovery of the misappropriated amount from any person involved in fraud, no orders under Section 51 and Section 60 will be necessar5r and on al enquiry under Section 21AA(1)(b) of the Act, necessary action can be taken. Since in the present case the proceedings are initiated for misuse of \ \
1
official position, ar d the enquiry was limited to the o:.tent of Section 21AA(1)(b) of lhe I cr. and since the ingredients of the said Act have been fulfilled, th,:r', ::s no iegal infirmity in the procelr.rre adopted by the respondents ar: d as such the writ petition filed by tJre petitioner is not maintainable t.l rat too in the absence of the petitirrrer availing the statutory remedy c, appeal and prays for dismissa-l of th: r.r rit petition. 8. Respondent ) o 2 also filed a detailed counter alfi Cavit in.ter alia stating that the pr rtitioner has induiged in misappr o prieLtion of the funds of the socier. ' rrld acted in contravention of th,: 3yelaws of the society ar-rd havirLg found the involvement of the petit oner in the acts of malfeasance and nrisfeasance, in order to protect t.tLe lar.ger i.nterest of the members . :he society a,d to safeguard tlre, fiLnds of the society, on a cor tF'laint submitted by the rnanag: ng committee members, action rr ar; initiated against the petitione:. a1<i the same does not require 1.o br: interfered by this court under l.rticl: 226 of the Constitution of Inc ia. Further, it is stated that as pr:r i_he enquiry conducted by the A;sistant Registrar and on verilicatic n of the records by respondent No.1, it abunda.tly shor.r.s that the 1;et.tioner was indulged in misapp'o criating the funds of the society. l'he said fact is a-lso corroborated ir the report of the District coopera.tLv,: officer dated 06.05.2002 whererrr a clear finding is given tc, the t:lfe,:t that the President of the s,: ciety (petitioner) has not follovued the prescribed r /'\
procedure. Further, it is a-rso alleged that the petitioner had drawn the amount on different dates under S/p Account worth of Rs.38, 10,000/- whereas the measurement books recorded that in one day for Rs.36,61,a84/-. Besides that the petitioner has a_lso drawn the amount of Rs.1,48,566/- rn excess to the measurement book record and failed to remit GST @ 12yo amount of Rs.4,39,32g/- and service charges of Rs. 13,42 I / - to the Assistant Engineer (panchayat Rai). since there is no account for the utilization of the said amounts as per the prescribed procedure, a presumption has to be drawn that the said amounts have been misused for the personal gains of the petitioner. Further it is contended in the counter a-ffrdavit that since an enquiry was instituted under Section 21AA(1)(b) of the Act which does not pre-suppose nor it mandates any enquiry under Section 51 of the Act or surcharge order under Section 60 of the Act, there is no illegality in conducting an independent enquiry under Section 21AA(1Xb) of the Act holding the petitioner as responsible for misutilisation of the funds of the society. It is further stated that the impugned order is preceded by an enquiry and adequacy or inadequacy of material cannot be subject matter of the writ petition and that too when the Statute provides for an alternative and efficacious remedy. It is also stated that the petitioner was put on notice and explanation was called for ald even the petitioner has r'\
9
availed the copir:s; of the enquiry report of th( Dis _rict CooPerative officer vide lelter' ,: aled 30.05.2022 and, instead of obt:rining copies of the rele'ant re:c< rrls before submitting the (:xl)l:rna tion dated 30.O5.2022 tlre 1: etitioner has chosen to ot)tain i.he copies on o1.06.2022. Tircrt: b'e, the fault if a.y can b. zrtt.-i:rutable to the petitioner. sini:e t[ e petitioner was lethargic in obtrri'ing copies in time. It is furth.r c.ntendecl in the counter affidavrt t 1at this court normaliy ',voull nc, r'xercise its writ jurisdiction unclt:r Article 226 of the constitutirn o India if al effective and efllcacic,us alternative remedy is avarla'blr . Since the case of the pelitio,,:r d.es not fa]l under ant, of tht: ,:x:eptions to the rule of altr:rnat vt: r:medy, the present writ petitior is not maintainable and the writ r(:tition is liable to be dismissed ,z ' tntine on the ground of alternative arnd eflicacious remedy availabie un ler Section 76 of the Act.
(a) Whethcr thr Present u,rit petition filed questioerng the orders
passed und:r Section 21AA(1)(b) of the Act js mzrintainable u,hen the si rrre is not preceded by an enquir) r,rncer Section 51 and pass ing of orders under Section 6Cr ol. t.t e Act:
10
(b) Whether the present writ petition is maintainable when alternative and efficacious remedy is available under the Statute on the ground that the respondents have not followed the procedure prescribed under the Statute; and
(c) To what relief the petitioner is entitled.
POINT No.1:
\
1,1,
'-1'lz:_:-.^-
required quon-rm s; re ll be treated as null and void. F-rrr thcr as per the enquiry report or' the Assistant Registrar, tL ere is n c sufficient material evidencr: rvailable to prove the guilt of the f;res;ident. The Assistant Regis.r-i r being the competent ,rffice -, and having administrative conr rcl over the societies has conrlur:tecl th. inspection of respondent Nc,.l2 /s;ociety and verified the minute lrc cks; an cl other books of acc()urrts and noticed that the petitioner ha.s incurred expenditure in rzi: lation of the permission givel b.1. the District cooperati'e olTice. vLde Rc.MNo.33ol2o17BC dirted J.:.0i1.2020 and committed se'er.l i:-regularities. Basing on the char ]es, which according to the r,: str)o.dents have been establisheci ir. the errquiry, the petitioner *,as r leclared to be ceased to hold offic: of respondent No.2/society u,rth ,:lfr:ct from 31.05.2022 and for rh€ r.es due of his term of the office ar d he u'as arso declared ineligrblt: f,r being chosen as or for being m.r:r br-'r of the committee through elecli.n .r cooption for the subsequent t ,{,ro terms.
72
<a!inr. ----+-
disqualifying the members of the society. Section 2lAA(1)(b) of the Act specifically states that on an enquiry under this Act, if a member of committee is found guilty of misuse of the property of the society for his personal gains, he shall cease to hold office forthwith as such, for the residue of his term of office and he sha-rl arso be ineligible for being chosen as or for being member of the committee through election or cooption for the subsequent two terms. As per the said provision, it is not mandatory that the member has to be ceased. The cessation order has to be passed folrowed by an enquiry under Section 5 1 of the Act or passing of an order under Section 60 0f the Act. Section 21AA(5) of the Act states that where the committee or societ5r fails to place the enquiry report under section 51, or inspection report under Section 52 0r section 53, or audit report or speciar audit report under section 5o along with the findings of the Registrar or fails to take immediate action for approval of the general body the member of the committee shall cease to hord such office. Section 22A(2) of the Act states that where a member of the committee found responsible for wilfuliy or knowingly sa,ctioning benami roaas sha, cease to hold offrce and shall also be ineligible to be a member of the committee for a period of six years. In the present case, the impugned order passed against the petitioner reveals that there is some material ava able to exercise the powers under Sub-section (b) of Section 21AA of the Act. The
/\
13
':i.i".i-i'
?7
remaining provisic, rs of the Act are not attracted so firr as the present case is concenrecl.
. \
1-4
misappropriation and misapprication of the funds, fraudulent retention, breach of trust or wilful negligence in imprementation of the provisions of the Act. After conducting audit enquiry under section 50 or an independent enquiry under Section 5l or al inspection under Sections 52 or 53 of the Act ald if the said enquiry reveals that members of the society have invorved in the abovesaid acts, the said misutilised amounts can be recovered under this provision.
15
authorities arc ernl,ow(:red to pass al order undt-'r Sect.on 21A,4 of the
Act
The point is; :n,;uered accordingly
Point No.2:
\ \
10
thereof is questioned. It is settled principle of law that an alternative remedy itself does not divest the High court of its powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India in an appropriate case. ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained when efficacious alternative remedy is prorrided by law. When a right is created by a Statute and very same Statute itself prescribes the remedy or the procedure for enforcement of the right arising under the Statute, resort must be had to the particular statutory remedy before knocking the doors of this court under Article 226 of the constitution of India. This rule of exhaustion of a statutory remedy is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others2, Harbanslal Sahnia and another vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others3 and Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and othersa.
'1rssa1sscc t
'(zoo:) z sccroz
4 2021 scc online sc 334
17
this nature is :rlrv r]'s liable forjudicial scrutin-'' anc lhe High Court cannot refusr to e;<ercise lhe discretionary p01\er lvhen there is violation of prrn6itry eri of natural justice. In support ol f is :ontentions, learned coun sel ol the petitioner relied upon j r<, grnent of the Supreme Court irr M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. 'the Excise And Taxation Officers
5 2023 SCC Online SC 9,,
5 ArR 2001 DEtHr380
AIR 2006 MADRAS 67
18
Limiteda, Union of India and others vs. M/s. Cipla Ltd. and anothers , Kalluram Alias Munnalal vs. The Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., Hyderabad and othersro, A.v.venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and anotherrl, Union of India vs. T.R.Varmar2, Sarabjit Rick Singh vs. Union of Indial3, Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rair+, Syed Yakoob vs. K.S.Radhakrishnanrs, State of U.p. vs. Mohammad Noohro, B.K.Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka and othersrz, Hrabans Lal vs. Jagmohan Saranrs, Nagar palika, Nataur vs. U.p.public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and othersre.
Act. Since these provisions are independent providing for different
| 31998Lawsuit (Mad)-762 'atR2ot6sc5oz5 'ot99111t1alt623 "alRtgstsc t5o6 t'AtR 1957sc882 "1zoos1zscc+rz \1^zooa1esccozs "ah196+sca;z '"atn19s8sc86 "atn2oo8sct+38 "ltR1986scao2 "1tssa1zsccloo |
|---|
19
contingencies to d isqllalify the members of the soci :t.v, t cannot be said that the au:l-r rrities are not having power tLncler fi,ecr.ion 21AA of the Act in the atrsr ,nce of cor-rducting the enquiry trntle:r Section 5 i of the Act. Further. tlre Statute specilically provides f ;r' an efficacious alternative reme<i-r, of ilppeal against any of the orders passecl by an authority under l}r:t:orl 76 ol the Act. The Act frrrther jtates that any person or socret;' ag;glievcd b], an] decision passed lrr crder made under Sectior-: I V, of the Act may appeal to th:: Oo-operative Tribunal. The 'l'rit unals ha'e been constituted to h:ar the appea-ls, revisions and re.r,r:vrs arising out of the disPule rr:lal.ing to the administrative aflai-s o[ the society. when such rribrl alsr har,'e been constituted consi::ti tp1 of Chairmal and more than t,"l.c t:th<:r members and the chairma. : hall be a person represented b1, jul.cial officers, it cannot be said tl-ra.: i1 is not an efficacious remedr-. we,,'n -he appeals arising out of thc or dt:rs of the quasi judicial authoritit:s ar,: sulrjected to the decision bcirL;,,al<en by the Special Tribunals, it <:annot be said that the Tribunals; i r. not having jurisdiction to <lecid,: -he validity or otherwise ol' the or lt rs passed by the quasi judicirl rrulhorities in violation of princict,:s ol natural justice. Therefore. tlrt: pt:titioner or any aggrievcd pers rn rs alu,ays entitled to raise ztlt tht: available grounds before rht:-'ribunal including the .luiisdiction irr.d ,,iolation of principles of nettr rrd justice by the statutory/ q.rasi judicial
20
authorities. Normally the writ courts while exercising their jurisdiction are not entitled to examine the disputed questions which are having bearing on the merits of the matter rather the Tribunals constituted for specific purpose are always entitled to examine whether the authorities under the Statute have proceeded to conduct an enquiry in conformity with the provisions, rules, byelaws of the society and a-lso adhering to the principles of natural justice. It is not that the High Courts are not having any power or authority to entertain the writ petitions. When an objection as to the maintainability goes to the root of the matter and if such objection is found to be substance, the courts have imposed self-restrictions to entertain the writ petitions, as the entertainability falls entirely within the realm of the discretion of the High Court as the writ remedy is always to be discretionary. writ petition even though is maintainable may not be entertained for so many reasons or relief could even be refused to the petitioner despite setting up a sound legal point, if grant of the claimed relief would not in the public interest.
2I. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was subjected for an enquiry which is preceded by issuance of show cause notice, calling for explanation and considered the grounds raised therein. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that once such a procedure of fair play has been adopted by the respondents, the petitioner is not
21_
entitled as a rnzrl-t. r of right to agitate the claims beft,rr: this court on the groun d of ,cle,: ui1c.y or in adequacy of materi.r rrar;i,,. for forming of an opinion by rho : tatutorv authorities.
The poinl rs, i: :l;wered accordingly.
POINT No.3:
As a sequel, rr iscellaneous petitions pendinq, rf z r.: y, r;hal1 stand closed. There shatl >e no order as to costs.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/. 1., -AT(SHMI BABU ASSlS"lrN] REGISTRAR Ltl) SEI]TIifN OFFICER
One fair copy tc the HON'BLE SRt JUSTTCE C V BHASF A,R REDDY (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal)
To,
SB
ADK
HIGH COURI'
DATED:0810e 12023
ORDER
<br>1 r lii\ ?[s
WP.No.24514 ot 2022
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COI;TS
,',..' )
rl/
<br>in
1,">
<br>
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging an order under Section 21AA(1)(b) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 is maintainable when not preceded by an enquiry under Section 51 or surcharge u
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available under Section 76 of the Act.
To what relief the petitioner is entitled.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State Of Bihar and othersReferred¶6
Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State Of Bihar and others
Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and othersReferred¶17
Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others
Harbanslal Sahnia and another vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and othersReferred¶17
Harbanslal Sahnia and another vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others
Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and othersReferred¶17
Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. The Excise And Taxation OfficersReferred¶18
M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. The Excise And Taxation Officers
All India Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties and another vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶19
All India Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties and another vs. Union of India and others
S.N.J. Abdul Hakeem and others vs. Assisrathul Musthakeem Eflreemkhana Trust and othersReferred¶19
S.N.J. Abdul Hakeem and others vs. Assisrathul Musthakeem Eflreemkhana Trust and others
Indian Oxygen Employees Union vs. BOC India LimitedReferred¶19
Indian Oxygen Employees Union vs. BOC India Limited
Union of India and others vs. M/s. Cipla Ltd. and anotherReferred¶19
Union of India and others vs. M/s. Cipla Ltd. and another
Kalluram Alias Munnalal vs. The Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., Hyderabad and othersReferred¶19
Kalluram Alias Munnalal vs. The Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., Hyderabad and others
A.v.venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and anotherReferred¶19
A.v.venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and another
Union of India vs. T.R.VarmaReferred¶19
Union of India vs. T.R.Varma
Sarabjit Rick Singh vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶19
Sarabjit Rick Singh vs. Union of India
Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander RaiReferred¶19
Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai
Syed Yakoob vs. K.S.RadhakrishnanReferred¶19
Syed Yakoob vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan
State of U.p. vs. Mohammad NoohReferred¶19
State of U.p. vs. Mohammad Nooh
B.K.Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka and othersReferred¶19
B.K.Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka and others
Hrabans Lal vs. Jagmohan SaranReferred¶19
Hrabans Lal vs. Jagmohan Saran
Nagar Palika, Nataur vs. U.p.public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and othersReferred¶19
Nagar Palika, Nataur vs. U.p.public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others
5 provisions across 2 enactments
M. Laxminarsimha Reddy
The State of Telangana
The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society
The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Society
District Cooperative officer
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
