CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Tirmal Singh vs Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 24 August 1984 · Citation: (1985) AWC 164

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.M. Sahai, J · J.N. Dubey, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 — Section 2, 34, 95A, 95A(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 2261 of 1976
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 344 words

R.M. Sahai, J.—Aggrieved by recovery of laon u/s 95-A of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act the Petitioner an Ex-Sabhapati of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Maurkhurd, Tahsll Mawana, district Meerut has filed this petition. The recovery is assailed mainly because no adjudication has been shown nor any opportunity was afforded to Petitioner. No counter affidavit has been filed even though opposite parties have been served.

2.

Section 95-A is a special provision added by U.P. Act No. 12 of 1976 for recovery of dues of agricultural society mentioned in Section 34 of the Act or an agricultural credit society. Former is a society in which the Government by virtue of its subscription to share capital or indirect assistance in formation or agumentation of share capital or by giving of laon or advances has a right to nominate on the committee of management. Latter is a society Which according to Sub-clause (a-1) of Section 2 of the Act has to be society a majority of the ordinary members whereof are primarily engaged in agricultural occupation. The Petitioner on the other hand was a Sabhapati of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti. Prima facie, therefore, it was not an agricultural credit Society nor was it covered by a society mentioned in Section 34 of the Act. Moreover, the Society having not appeared and clarified the position there is no option but to accept the claim of Petitioner that recovery could not have been made u/s 95-A of the Act. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to decide whether the Registrar while issuing recovery certificate had complied with the procedure as mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 95-A of the Act.

3.

In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Recovery proceeding against the Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7,169.70 initiated u/s 95-A is quashed. It shall be open for the opposite parties to proceed against the Petitioner if there is any laon against him, in accordance with law. As no body has appeared for the opposite parties there shall be no order as to costs.