Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIKSHA PARISHAD BILTHARA ROAD THR' ITS SECRETARY & ANOTHER versus THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, FIRMS SOCIETIES & CHITS & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shiksha Parishad Bilthara Road Thr' Its Secretary & Another v. The Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1384 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6195 (22 November 2005)

 

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. 34

Special Appeal No. 1384 of 2005

Shiksha Parishad

Vs.

Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits, Varansai and others

~~~~

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

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20th October, 2005 of a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.20682 of 1987.

The petition had been filed for quashing the order dated 5th December, 1986 of the Prescribed Authority passed under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. Two sets of elections were said to have been held on 25th September, 1979 and 20th September, 1979 as a result of which the Assistant Registrar referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority, by the order dated 5th December, 1986 held that the said members elected on 20th September, 1979 were validly elected and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the Prescribed Authority had dealt with factual aspect of the matter and recorded categorical finding of fact and no procedural error leading to any substantial in justice could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned judge also observed that the term of the Committee was only for 3 years and that subsequent elections had also been held. The learned Judge, therefore, found it not to be a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the petition.

We have heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

It is not in dispute that the elections held in the year 1979 were the bone of contention before the Prescribed Authority and that the term of the Committee is only 3 years and that subsequently number of elections have been held. The dispute is, therefore, merely academic in nature. We, therefore, see no good reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Judge.

The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Date: 22.11.2005

GS - 1384


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.