TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the bye-laws of a co-operative housing society could restrict the statutory voting right under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960 by adopting a "one family one vote" formula.
Analysis: Section 27 embodies the statutory rule that no member of a society shall have more than one vote and every member admitted to membership is entitled to exercise that right personally. Bye-laws are subordinate legislation and must conform to the Act; they cannot create a voting restriction inconsistent with the legislative command. The distinction between ownership of flats and membership of the society was material, and once more than one family member had been admitted as a member, the statutory voting right could not be curtailed by bye-law. The language of Section 27 was held to be clear and unambiguous, leaving no scope for a contrary bye-law-based limitation.
Conclusion: The bye-laws could not override the statute, and each admitted member of the society was entitled to one vote. The challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because the statutory voting scheme prevailed over the society's bye-laws.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers an unqualified voting right on every member, subordinate bye-laws cannot dilute that right by imposing a contrary voting formula.
TaxTMI 
