Gujarat High Court High Court

Pal vs Krishak on 19 September, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Pal vs Krishak on 19 September, 2008
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/11704/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11704 of 2008
 

 
 
=====================================================


 

PAL
GROUP CO OP COTTON SALE SOCIETY LTD - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

KRISHAK
BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD - Respondent(s)
 

=====================================================
Appearance : 
MR
YATIN OZA WITH MS SONAL R SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
===================================================== 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/09/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Upon
hearing Mr. Yatin Oza, learned counsel with Ms. Shah, learned counsel
for the petitioner, it appears that it is a dispute between the
petitioner Society and respondent Society. It is also an admitted
position that the petitioner is a member of the respondent Society,
which is Multi-State Cooperative Society governed by the Multi-State
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The dispute appears to be for right
of representation on behalf of the petitioner Society in the annual
general meeting of the respondent Society. As per the petitioner,
such representation is though backed by the Resolution, the
insistence is the representation through the Manager of the
petitioner Society only, such can be said as essentially the dispute
between the member and the society, which would fall in the category
of the dispute as provided under Section 84 of the Multi-State
Cooperative Societies Act. As per the said Act, there is expressed
mechanism provided under Section 84 of the Act for adjudication of
the dispute and the petitioner has not exhausted such statutory
remedy available under the said Act.

2. Under
these circumstances by way of self imposed restriction in exercise of
power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
present petition does not deserve to be entertained. Hence, not
entertained. Disposed of accordingly.

(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)

ynvyas

   

Top