Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

1988 (2) TMI 475

. 1. Normally this Court does not interfere with orders such as the one impugned in the present case, more so in a writ petition. However, the point which falls for consideration in the present case is of a general public importance and unless it is decided proceedings under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) may become a plaything in the hands of the parties interested in protracting them. The facts in the present case prove the apprehension. The petitioner is the Official Liquidator of a Co-operative Bank called Dadhich Sahakari Bank Limited. It was registered under the Act on September 17, 1980 and commenced work from November 3, 1980. Respondents Nos. 1 to 15 to the petition were the Di .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ation and after a part of his cross-examination was over, he applied to the Inquiry Officer, i.e., respondent No. 16 for adjournment on the ground that he was not prepared and ready to cross-examine the witness any further. He also showed his willingness to pay reasonable costs of the adjournment. Respondent No. 16 adjourned the hearing to June 14, 1986, on the condition that Respondent No. 1 paid a sum of ₹ 100/- to each of the delinquents who were present and a sum of ₹ 200/- to the claimant bank, i.e., the petitioner as the costs of adjournment. While making this order, respondent No. 16 observed that the matter was part-heard and the witness was in the box and other Advocates were not willing to cross-examine the witness unl .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

horised by him, when acting under Section 83, 84 or 88 shall have the power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person (and examining him on oath or affirmation or by affidavit) or to compel the production of any document or other material object by the same means and in the same manner as is provided in the case of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." It is contended that this provision gives the Inquiry Officer powers under the Civil Procedure Code only for summoning the persons and witnesses, and for producing documents, etc. Besides these powers there is no power given to the officer either under the Act or the Rules made under the Act. A. According to us, besides the aforesaid provisions, the provisions .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ct to the costs occasioned by the adjournment. There is no reason why this power of granting costs occasioned by the adjournment at the instance of a party should not be read into the power of summoning and compelling the attendance of the witness or any person etc. which is explicitly given by Section 89. We are, therefore, satisfied that even under Section 89 the Inquiry Officer has the power not only to grant adjournment but also to grant costs of adjournment if necessary. 4. But besides Section 89, as stated earlier. Section 88 itself also confers powers on the Inquiry Officer to grant not only adjournments but also costs of adjournments. Section 88 gives power to the officer to conduct misfeasance proceedings against the persons concer .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

consideration before directing respondent No. 1 to pay the costs to each of the delinquents. Further respondents 2 to 15 had more or less a common cause with respondent No. 1. It however, appears that the petitioner was all along opposed to the granting of adjournment to the respondents. Costs in favour of the petitioner would have met the ends of justice and it was therefore unnecessary to grant costs to the other contesting respondents. We will therefore modify the order passed both by the Appellate Court as well as the Inquiry Officer and direct that the. Inquiry Officer's order of costs of ₹ 200/- in favour of the petitioner Bank will stand and respondent No. 1 should pay the said costs to the petitioner. The order of costs in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||