Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohan Menghraj Shroff, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 10 August 2017 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (respondent no.1) allowing Intervention Application No.30 of 2017 filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 in Application No.4973 of 2016. The petitioner claimed that his deceased brother, Amar Menghraj Shroff, along with Laxminarain V.Shroff, had applied as tenants in common for five shares in Flat No.35, Guide Building, Mumbai. A nomination form dated 2 August 1975 nominated the petitioner for 50% share of Amar Menghraj Shroff. After the death of the original members, the petitioner applied under Section 30(1) read with Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for transfer of 50% shares. The society not responding, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 23(2) before the Deputy Registrar. In that appeal, respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed an intervention application claiming rights as nominees. The Deputy Registrar allowed the intervention. The High Court, per Justice R.D. Dhanuka, dismissed the petition, holding that the intervenors had a direct interest in the subject matter and their presence was necessary for a fair and effective adjudication. The court found no error in the Deputy Registrar's order and noted that the petitioner would have an opportunity to contest the intervenors' claims in the main proceedings.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Law - Intervention Application - Right to be Heard - Section 23, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - The Deputy Registrar allowed intervention by respondent nos. 3 and 4 who claimed rights as nominees of the deceased member - The High Court held that the intervenors had a direct interest in the subject matter and were necessary parties for effective adjudication - The petition challenging the intervention order was dismissed (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Registrar was justified in allowing the intervention application filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the appeal under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Deputy Registrar allowing the intervention application.
Law Points
- Intervention application
- Right to be heard
- Section 23 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960
- Section 30 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- Natural justice
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (04) 178
Writ Petition No. 13084 of 2017 with Civil Application No. 59 of 2018
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Farid Karachiwala, Ms. Sneh Mehta, Mr. Mahek Chhada for Petitioner; Mr. S.H. Kankal, A.G.P. for State-Respondent No.1; Mr. Murtuza Slatewala for Respondent No.2; Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 'D' Ward, Mumbai; Empire Guide Co-operative Society Limited; Ramkishan V. Shroff; Nirmala Laxminarain Shroff
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order allowing intervention application in an appeal under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 10 August 2017 allowing Intervention Application No.30 of 2017.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that respondent nos. 3 and 4 had no right to intervene in the appeal filed by the petitioner for transfer of shares.
Previous Decisions
Deputy Registrar allowed intervention application on 10 August 2017.
Issues
Whether the Deputy Registrar was justified in allowing the intervention application filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the appeal under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondent nos. 3 and 4 had no locus standi to intervene as they were not parties to the nomination or the appeal.
Respondent nos. 3 and 4 contended that they were nominees of the deceased member and had a direct interest in the subject matter.
Ratio Decidendi
Intervenors who have a direct interest in the subject matter of the appeal are entitled to be heard, and the Deputy Registrar did not err in allowing the intervention application.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 10th August,2017 allowing the Intervention Application No.30 of 2017 filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the Application No.4973 of 2016.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed application under Section 30(1) read with Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on 29 December 2016 before the society. Society did not respond. Petitioner filed appeal under Section 23(2) before Deputy Registrar. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed intervention application on 23 March 2017. Deputy Registrar allowed intervention on 10 August 2017. Petitioner filed writ petition on 13 October 2017. High Court dismissed petition on 24 April 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: 23, 30
- Constitution of India: 227
