<?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>2018 (10) TMI 2040 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458146</link>
    <description>Prior consultation under Section 37(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 was held unnecessary at the stage of issuing notice under Section 37(1); it applies to the consequential removal decision, not initiation of proceedings. Section 37(1-A) was construed as an interim suspension power that may be exercised while proceedings under Section 37(1) are pending, provided the Registrar forms the required opinion that suspension is in the society&#039;s interest. Sections 37 and 67 were held to operate in distinct fields, and the impugned action was supported by inspection, audit, and inquiry material and was not mala fide or without application of mind.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:50:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 2040 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458146</link>
      <description>Prior consultation under Section 37(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 was held unnecessary at the stage of issuing notice under Section 37(1); it applies to the consequential removal decision, not initiation of proceedings. Section 37(1-A) was construed as an interim suspension power that may be exercised while proceedings under Section 37(1) are pending, provided the Registrar forms the required opinion that suspension is in the society&#039;s interest. Sections 37 and 67 were held to operate in distinct fields, and the impugned action was supported by inspection, audit, and inquiry material and was not mala fide or without application of mind.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>