Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (8) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 ₹ 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 Co-operative Appellate Court by its common judgment dated 8-7-1970, in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y 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 . He has particularly relied on the observation of the Supreme Court ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns 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 and is expected to do so. Relying on the aforesaid decision Mr. Manohar contended that the present case is a case of grave injustice and that ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ), 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 servant nor in any way connected with it and, therefore, section 91 of the Act could not be invoked against him by the society. The Co-operative Court in this regard has given inconsistent findings .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ociety and, therefore , he was connected with it and consequently the application under section 91 of the Act was maintainable. However, it was possible for him to show from the application that the petitioner was in any way connected with the society, either as a servant or in any other capacity. The application is absolutely silent in regard to the connection of the petitioner with the society. In view of this it would not be possible to sustain the award, notwithstanding that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner after several years. It is a case of grave injustice and if the award and the impugned order is allowed to sustain merely because the appeal was not filed within time. It would amount to mockery of justice ; it would tantam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates