<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (2) TMI 681 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186859</link>
    <description>Section 95 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 requires sums due from a co-operative society to be recovered first from the society&#039;s property and, where applicable, then from members or past members within the statutory limit of liability. It does not authorise recovery from an office-bearer merely because he holds that position. Personal recovery against an officer is impermissible unless the statute expressly permits it and the prescribed recovery route against the society has been followed. A notice seeking recovery from a petitioner who was only an office-bearer was therefore quashed, leaving recovery to be pursued against the society in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2016 12:53:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 681 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186859</link>
      <description>Section 95 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 requires sums due from a co-operative society to be recovered first from the society&#039;s property and, where applicable, then from members or past members within the statutory limit of liability. It does not authorise recovery from an office-bearer merely because he holds that position. Personal recovery against an officer is impermissible unless the statute expressly permits it and the prescribed recovery route against the society has been followed. A notice seeking recovery from a petitioner who was only an office-bearer was therefore quashed, leaving recovery to be pursued against the society in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>