<?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>2004 (3) TMI 802 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272489</link>
    <description>A committee cannot continue beyond its original term on the basis of an extension notification meant for a different class of societies. The Court held that the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act regime, as adapted by the reorganisation law, continued to operate in Chhattisgarh, and that the Registrar could assume charge only where the committee failed to hold elections and hand over charge on expiry of term. On the facts, the Federation&#039;s bye-laws showed agricultural and financial ies, so it did not fall within the notified non-agricultural, non-credit category. The petitioner also failed to prove a valid pre-expiry request for elections, so the Registrar&#039;s assumption of charge was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2018 12:09:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 802 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272489</link>
      <description>A committee cannot continue beyond its original term on the basis of an extension notification meant for a different class of societies. The Court held that the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act regime, as adapted by the reorganisation law, continued to operate in Chhattisgarh, and that the Registrar could assume charge only where the committee failed to hold elections and hand over charge on expiry of term. On the facts, the Federation&#039;s bye-laws showed agricultural and financial ies, so it did not fall within the notified non-agricultural, non-credit category. The petitioner also failed to prove a valid pre-expiry request for elections, so the Registrar&#039;s assumption of charge was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>