LexMD. MOINUDDIN AND ORS. versus THE COMMISSIONER FOR COOPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 235 MD. MOINUDDIN AND ORS. v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR COOPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5448 of 2014) MAYO?, 2014 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Cooperative Societies - Group-housing co-operative society - Initially having 28 members, rising upto 75 members - Initially land purchased with the funds provided A B c by 11 founder members - Membership of 37 members disputed - Claim of the 11 founder members for exclusive D right in the land, as it was purchased with the funds provided by them - Held: Claim by individual members is not acceptable - Once the land was purchased by the Society, the property vests in the Society-- It is for the Society to deal · with the land in accordance with the co-operative principles E · and the objects with which the society was formed- Direction to General Body of the Society to consider allotment of plots to members taking into consideration their seniority. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The admission of the 37 members can F no longer be in controversy as it was a concluded issue. If at all the membership of the 37 persons were to be· cancelled, the same could have been done by applying any of the relevant provisions in the Bye-laws of the Co- operative Society. Out of 37 members, 10 have accepted G their refund of share capital and as on datE!, only 27 out of the 37 remain who have returned the cheques issued by the society. In the absence of any such valid order of approval by the Registrar relating to the expulsion of the 235 H 236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R. A newly added members, there is no question of the remaining 27 members having ceased to be the members of the society. [Paras 29, 30 and 31][253-B-H] 2. The members, who contributed their funds to the society, have no exclusive right to claim any share in B the property on the ground that they made the investments for the purchase of the iand. Such a claim would run counter to the cooperative principles, which is the object of the society when it came to be formed. Once the land was purchased by the society, the C property vests in the society. Therefore, It is for the society to consider how to deal with the said land in accordance with the cooperative .Principles and the objects with which the society was formed as mentioned in the By-Laws. It is not for the individual members to D claim in what manner the land should be dealt with for the purpose of distribution amongst its members. [Paras 35 and 36][257-D-H] 3. Therefore, neither th_e founder members nor. E those who were subsequently inducted/admitted as· members, can claim any preference or right of allotment in any particular manner, other than the manner i.e. after the layout is sanctioned, the General Body would consider the allotments of plots in favour of th.e members F of the society by taking into consideration their seniority as per the Bye-Laws concerning allotment of plots. [Paras 38 and 39][258-H; 29-A, C-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5448of2014. G From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2009 in Writ H Appeal No. 798 of 2007 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. WITH MD. MOINUDDIN v. COMMNR. FOR COOPERATION & REGISTRAR OF 237 COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] C.A. Nos. 5451, 5449, 5450 of 2014 A Conmt. Pet. No. 251 of 2011 and Conmt. Pet. No. 302 cif2010. Mr. AT. M. Rangaramanujam, R. Basant, Jaideep Gupta, Sr.Adv., Ms. Neha Sharma, D. Verma, AV. Rangam, Buddy B A. Ranganadhan, GV. Giridhar, D. Mahesh Babu, Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Amjid Maqbool, Amit K. Nain, Aditya Jain, Ramakrishna Rao, GauravAgrawal,Anup Kumar, Ms. Neha Jaiswal, Devvrat, Ms. Kasturika Kaumudi, Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, Anurag Pandey, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Venkita c Subramoniam T.R., Rahal Bansal, Gagandeep Sharma, Nikhil Jain, Advs.for the appearing parties. K. Srinivasa Rao, Petitioner- in - Person. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. D 2. In all the above appeals and the connected contempt petitions, the issue concerns with the members of a cooperative E society called 'The Valtas Employees Cooperative House Building & Construction SoCiety Ltd. No.TAB 508'. It is a classic case where the members of the above referred to society got themselve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.