<?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>2009 (4) TMI 1063 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313354</link>
    <description>Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 permits arbitration only for disputes between a multi-state cooperative society and a member, past member, or persons claiming through such member, where the dispute concerns the society&#039;s constitution, management or business. A dispute against non-member acceptor and co-acceptor of bills of exchange could not be referred on the basis that the drawer was a member, because the acceptors were principal debtors and did not claim through the member-drawer; the drawer&#039;s liability was only that of a surety under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The reference against the non-members was therefore beyond jurisdiction, and jurisdictional objection could be raised in writ proceedings because consent cannot confer jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2024 14:59:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 1063 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313354</link>
      <description>Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 permits arbitration only for disputes between a multi-state cooperative society and a member, past member, or persons claiming through such member, where the dispute concerns the society&#039;s constitution, management or business. A dispute against non-member acceptor and co-acceptor of bills of exchange could not be referred on the basis that the drawer was a member, because the acceptors were principal debtors and did not claim through the member-drawer; the drawer&#039;s liability was only that of a surety under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The reference against the non-members was therefore beyond jurisdiction, and jurisdictional objection could be raised in writ proceedings because consent cannot confer jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>