<?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>1996 (6) TMI 354 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297852</link>
    <description>The tenure-expiry of a co-operative society&#039;s Board did not automatically render it functus officio where the statutory scheme preserved the Registrar&#039;s power, and in special cases the State Government&#039;s power, to direct or authorise a delayed general meeting; accordingly, the direction to hold the delegate election and annual general meeting was not without jurisdiction merely because the three-year term had ended. Separately, the writ petitioner&#039;s failure to disclose a prior proceeding was treated as material suppression, and that nondisclosure disentitled the petitioner to discretionary writ relief. The writ judgment was therefore set aside and the writ petition failed on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2021 15:21:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=656811" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 354 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297852</link>
      <description>The tenure-expiry of a co-operative society&#039;s Board did not automatically render it functus officio where the statutory scheme preserved the Registrar&#039;s power, and in special cases the State Government&#039;s power, to direct or authorise a delayed general meeting; accordingly, the direction to hold the delegate election and annual general meeting was not without jurisdiction merely because the three-year term had ended. Separately, the writ petitioner&#039;s failure to disclose a prior proceeding was treated as material suppression, and that nondisclosure disentitled the petitioner to discretionary writ relief. The writ judgment was therefore set aside and the writ petition failed on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297852</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>