right to vote= Under Section 25 (1-A) (d) of the Act, a member of a Society shall not be eligible to exercise the right to vote, if he is default in the payment of any amount due in cash or kind to the Society for such period as may be prescribed. In view of the aforesaid provision of law and as it is not in dispute that the petitioner-Society is default in payment of amount due to the 2nd respondent-Bank, the former is not eligible to exercise its franchise in the elections to the 2nd respondent-Bank. In any event, it is to be noticed that if the name of the petitioner-Society is not included in the voters list, it can as well raise a dispute before the Election Tribunal.


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.4549 of 2013
ORDER :

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Nizamabad, 2nd respondent herein.

The petitioner is a Society registered under the A.P.
Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) and a member Society of the 2nd respondent-Bank. Elections are notified for the purpose of holding elections to Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies as well as District Co-operative Central Banks.

It is the case of the petitioner-Society that by the impugned order, it was informed that all the overdue amounts should be cleared before 12.02.2013, in default, it shall be treated that the Society is ineligible to exercise its franchise in the elections to the 2ndrespondent-Bank. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order deprives its right to vote in the elections to the 2ndrespondent-Bank, that too, without giving any adequate time to pay the amounts due.

Under Section 25 (1-A) (d) of the Act, a member of a Society shall not be eligible to exercise the right to vote, if he is default in the payment of any amount due in cash or kind to the Society for such period as may be prescribed.

In view of the aforesaid provision of law and as it is not in dispute that the petitioner-Society is default in payment of amount due to the 2nd respondent-Bank, the former is not eligible to exercise its franchise in the elections to the 2nd respondent-Bank. In any event, it is to be noticed that if the name of the petitioner-Society is not included in the voters list, it can as well raise a dispute before the Election Tribunal.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the writ petition shall stand closed.

________________________
                                            R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
18th February, 2013
cbs


































HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY





































WRIT PETITION No.4549 of 2013





18th February, 2013

cbs

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.