<?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>1991 (10) TMI 319 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198324</link>
    <description>Section 40 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 was treated as a supervisory provision for removal of a disqualified office-bearer, not an adjudicatory alternative for nomination or election disputes, so it did not bar writ jurisdiction. Section 37, read with its explanation, was construed to count a president&#039;s term held at the Act&#039;s commencement where the person was again elected after commencement, preventing more than two consecutive terms and making the respondent ineligible for the further election. A writ also lay to enforce statutory duties against the society and returning officer notwithstanding that the society was not State under Article 12. The election was therefore invalid and the nomination and result were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:35:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506455" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 319 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198324</link>
      <description>Section 40 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 was treated as a supervisory provision for removal of a disqualified office-bearer, not an adjudicatory alternative for nomination or election disputes, so it did not bar writ jurisdiction. Section 37, read with its explanation, was construed to count a president&#039;s term held at the Act&#039;s commencement where the person was again elected after commencement, preventing more than two consecutive terms and making the respondent ineligible for the further election. A writ also lay to enforce statutory duties against the society and returning officer notwithstanding that the society was not State under Article 12. The election was therefore invalid and the nomination and result were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>