Law: Cooperative Societies Act, 1925

Section: 70,54,70A

Law: Cooperative Societies Act, 1925

Section: 70,54,70A

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.IX,R.8,O.VII,R.11,O.II,R.2,S.12(1),35A ,11

(a) Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925)-------Ss. 54, 70 & 70-A---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54---Dispute between societies---Mandatory requirements---Bar of jurisdiction---Scope---Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below---Plaintiff society sought mandatory injunction against defendant society---Suit was concurrently decreed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court in favour of plaintiff---Plea raised by defendant was that suit of plaintiff was not maintainable under S. 70 of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925---Validity---Matter was a dispute of piece of land 'which was being claimed by both the parties, therefore, neither provisions of S. 54 nor S. 70-A of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, would obstruct the suit for permanent injunction---Provisions of Ss. 54, 70 or 70-A of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, related to disputes touching business of the society---Suit for permanent injunction was not barred by provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925---Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court had dealt with in detail all issues and discrepancies between the parties in the light of evidence adduced by parties---Concurrent findings of facts and law were recorded by two courts below against defendant society and the same could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction---Defendant society failed to point out any illegality, infirmity, misreading / non-reading of evidence or jurisdictional error in s and decrees passed by two Courts below---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Mst. Sardar Begum and 5 others v. Delhi Mercantile Cooperative Housing Society Limited and 2 others 1997 CLC 962 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 11 & O.II, R.2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.54---Res judicata---Subsequent suit---Maintainability---Subsequent suit for permanent injunction is neither hit by S. 11, C.P.C. nor by O.II R.2 C.P.C. because suit for permanent injunction is a relied in relation to cause of action stated in that suit---Such is not a claim and further the question of res judicata would not arise in a case when a previous suit was dismissed for non-prosecution-Provision of S.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492