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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the dispute between a licensor and licensee concerning a flat in a co-operative housing society fell within Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.
Analysis: The dispute was examined in the light of earlier Division Bench and Supreme Court decisions on the meaning of the expression "touching the business of the society". The decisive considerations were that, at the time of the leave and licence transaction, the society was not a party to it and was not itself a disputant, and that the transaction, on the facts found, was a private arrangement between the member-licensor and the licensee. The earlier binding decision in Kalavati's case was treated as governing the field, and the later observations relied upon by the respondents were not taken to displace that authority. On the facts, the dispute did not satisfy the requirements for Section 91 jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The dispute did not fall within Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and the preliminary objection of the petitioner succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A private licensor-licensee dispute concerning a flat in a co-operative housing society does not fall within Section 91 unless it is shown, on the facts, that the society's business is directly touched and that the member's capacity as a member is genuinely involved.