CWP No. 11247 of 2012. Case: Gurmeet Singh Vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | CWP No. 11247 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. A.P.S. Mann, Addl. A.G. Punjab Ms. Manvinder Preet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No. 5 |
| Judges | Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. |
| Issue | Trusts and Societies Act |
| Judgement Date | July 22, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J., (At Chandigarh)
-
The petitioner has challenged the resolution dated 23.12.2011 in which respondent No. 5 has been elected as President of respondent No. 3. As per the case of the petitioner, there are nine members of the Administrative Committee of the Narike Multipurpose Cooperative Agricultural Services Society, Narike. The petitioner himself was the President of the said society. He himself tendered his resignation which is reflected in his affidavit dated 21.12.2012 attached as Annexure R-1 with the petition. Consequently, the meeting was convened on 23.12.2011 for which agenda notice dated 06.12.2011, was circulated.
-
The meeting was held on the stipulated date in which six members out of nine members came present but two of them left and four members including the petitioner signed the proceedings of the meeting. In the said meeting, respondent No. 5 was elected as President of the society.
-
Grievance of the petitioner in this case is that agenda notice of the meeting dated 23.12.2011 was not served upon all the members of the society which is contrary to Rule 8 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (for short, the Rules) as per which 15 days notice is required to be served upon the members.
-
When notice was issued, operation of the impugned order dated 23.12.2011 was also stayed by this Court.
-
Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has submitted that neither the petitioner has any remedy in terms of Rule 80 (i) (a) of the Rules, but also he does not have any case because he himself had attended the meeting in which six members came present. Even if, two of them left, the meeting was held in the presence of four members which is sufficient to carry...
To continue reading
Request your trial