SHANTILAL AMOLAKCHAND BURAD Vs. VIJAY RAMJI PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Letters Patent appeals seek to challenge the Judgment Reported in [1986] Mah. L.J. 314 given by a learned single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 4266 of 1985. Necessarily few facts leading to the said writ petition ought to be mentioned. For the sake of convenience, the parties as described in letters patent appeal No. 24 of 1986 are referred to in this judgment.

(2.) THE 9th respondent, namely the Girna Sahakari Sakhar Kaikhana Limited, is a specified co -operative society within the meaning of Section 73G of the Maharashtra Co -operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the ''said Act' or 'the Act'. Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 were the petitioners in the writ petition. Respondent No. 10 was respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. Respondent No. 2 had called a general body meeting of the society to consider a resolution expressing no confidence in the managing committee of the society purporting to be a resolution under bye -law No, 34(c) of the bye -laws applicable to the society. Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 challenged the action of respondent No. 10 by contending that the general body had in law no authority to consider or to pass a resolution expressing lack of confidence in the managing committee despite the provision contained in bye -law 34(c). With this contention they raised a dispute under Section 91 of the said Act in the Co -operative Court at Nashik. The contention of respondents Nos. 1 to 8 was that under Section 73G of the Act the members of the managing committee elected at the same time in a general body meeting cannot be removed before the lapse of five years after they are elected. The managing committee of the society was elected on November 9, 1984 and, therefore, the members of the said committee were, under the provisions of Section 73G of the Act, entitled to continue for a period of five years and the managing committee could not be removed from office by the passing of a resolution provided for in bye -law No. 34(c). The said bye -law itself was ultra vires of the previsions of the Act and in particular of Section 73G of the Act.

(3.) IN the dispute which respondents Nos. 1 to 8 raised in the Co -operative Court at Nashik, numbered as ABN Case No. 806 of 1985, an application for interim injunction restraining respondent No. 10 from proceeding with the meeting was made. That application was dismissed by the Co -operative Court by its order dated October 3, 1985. A revision application, being revision application No. 108 of 1985, was preferred by respondents Nos. 1 to 8 to the Appellate Court at Bombay which, by its judgment and order dated October 4, 1985, dismissed the same.