TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (8) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined as opponents No. 7 and the petitioner was joined as opponent No. 8. It was contended that the respondent No. 1 Society owned a truck and that it was given to respondent No. 2 on hire but Babasaheb Kinkhede, instead of paying the hire charges misappropriated the amount of the Society. The Co-operative Court passed an Award vide order dated 31st March, 1968 declaring that the amount of Rs. 25, 950/- should be recovered from the opponents Nos. 7 and 8 i.e., the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, failing which the amount shall be recovered from the opponents Nos. 1 to 6. The award was challenged by way of appeals by opponents Nos. 1 to 7. The petitioner did not challenge the award. The appeals were partly allowed by the Maharashtra State....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and thereafter he was continuously pursuing his remedy some time by way of review petition and some time by way of writ petition. He further contended that this Court allowed him to withdraw the writ petition so as to enable him to exhaust all remedies available under the Co-operative Act. This Court also made observation that the appeal could also be filed even though it was barred by time provided the delay could be properly explained. Having regard to all these facts Mr. Manohar contended that it would be too harsh to reject his request on the ground of limitation. He has invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in (1987)ILLJ500SC Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another v. Mst. Katiji & others ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of capable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was not tenable against the petitioner. He has also invited my attention to Explanation 2 of section 91(3), the material portion of which reads as under :- "Explanation 2---For the purpose of this sub-section, a dispute shall include--- (i) x x x x (ii) x x x x (iii) a claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, past member or deceased member, by any officer, past officer or deceased officer, by any agent, or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant , or by its committee, past or present, whether such loss be admitted or not;" According to Mr. Manohar, the petitioner is neither a member of the society nor its serva....