Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAN LAL versus DISTRICT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,CO

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohan Lal v. District Assistant Registrar,Co-operative Societies, U.P.,Saharanpur & ors. - WRIT - A No. 3000 of 1997 [2003] RD-AH 54 (26 March 2003)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO. 24

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO 3000 Of 1997

Mohan Lal -----      Petitioner

Versus

District Assistant Registrar,

Co-operative Societies, U.P.,

Saharanpur & ors. -----            Respondents.

--------------

Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 12.11.1996, passed by respondent no.1 (Annexure VII), by which the memo of appeal has been returned to the petitioner to be presented before the forum of his choice as he had no faith in the appellate authority, under the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the Societies Act), and petitioner-appellant insisted that the matter should be heard by a magistrate court.

The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had been employed as a salesman in the respondent no. 3 Society from 1985 to 1989 and his service stood terminated vide order dated 16th February, 1989. The petitioner also faced the arbitration proceedings before the respondent no. 2 as a sum of Rs. 5,700/- was due against him and the matter had been referred to Arbitration Case No. 1393 of 1995.

Vide order dated 5.11.1995 Award was made holding that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,700/-. Being aggrieved of the said Award, petitioner preferred the appeal before respondent no.1. However subsequently, application was filed to transfer the appeal before a magistrate. As the matter has been heard under the provisions of Societies Act demanding, to transfer the case before a magistrate court, the appeal was entertained. At the time of the argument the petitioner refused to make argument and insisted that the matter should be transferred to a magistrate. The appellate authority rejected the memo of appeal to be presented before the forum of his choice, hence this petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The sole question involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to ask for transferring the appeal to a magistrate court?

Though the appeal had been filed under the provisions of Societies Act, appeal is a creation of the statute and it cannot be entertained in any of the provisions provided for appeal nor it can be entertained by an appellate authority, not created under the Societies Act. As the appeal should have been entertained only by the respondent no.1, the demand of the petitioner had been not only unjustified but unwarranted and uncalled for. In such an eventuality, the appellate authority had no option but to return the memo of appeal and no fault can be found with the said order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 1 was so biased and prejudiced against the petitioner that the petitioner had no expectation of justice from him.

This argument cannot be entertained as in such an eventuality as petitioner was supposed to implead the respondent no.1 by name also. (Vide J.M.Banawalikar vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi & ors. AIR 1996 SC 326; State of Bihar & ors. Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 (Supp)1 SCC 222; I.K.Mishra vs. Union of India & ors., (1997) 6 SCC 228; and All India State Bank Officers Federation & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors., JT 1996 (8) SC 550

As in the instant case the respondent no. 1 has not been impleaded by the petitioner, allegations of mala fide etc. cannot be entertained.

The petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

26.3.2003

AKSI


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.