<?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>1995 (7) TMI 443 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293774</link>
    <description>An alternate statutory remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction; where the writ court has already entertained the matter and the alternative remedy has become time-barred, the petitioner need not be sent to that forum. The Registrar&#039;s power to enquire under Section 32 of the M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam Act, 1973 did not include authority to appoint an ad hoc committee, while supersession of an elected governing body was reserved to the State Government under Section 33. An order affecting elected members also required a reasonable opportunity of hearing, so the impugned order was quashed and the elected body was allowed to continue for its tenure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 10:09:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637819" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 443 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293774</link>
      <description>An alternate statutory remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction; where the writ court has already entertained the matter and the alternative remedy has become time-barred, the petitioner need not be sent to that forum. The Registrar&#039;s power to enquire under Section 32 of the M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam Act, 1973 did not include authority to appoint an ad hoc committee, while supersession of an elected governing body was reserved to the State Government under Section 33. An order affecting elected members also required a reasonable opportunity of hearing, so the impugned order was quashed and the elected body was allowed to continue for its tenure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293774</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>