Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
31 judgments · newest first · showing 1–31
The Bombay High Court considered a series of writ petitions filed by directors, expert directors, relatives and others of Rupee Co‑operative Bank Ltd seeking relief from an order dated 2 February 2016 made by the Authorized Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, …
The Bombay High Court considered a series of writ petitions filed by directors, expert directors, relatives and others of Rupee Co‑operative Bank Ltd seeking relief from an order dated 2 February 2016 made by the Authorized Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, …
The Bombay High Court considered a series of writ petitions filed by directors, expert directors, relatives and others of Rupee Co‑operative Bank Ltd seeking relief from an order dated 2 February 2016 made by the Authorized Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, …
The Bombay High Court considered a series of writ petitions filed by directors, expert directors, relatives and others of Rupee Co‑operative Bank Ltd seeking relief from an order dated 2 February 2016 made by the Authorized Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, …
The Bombay High Court considered a series of writ petitions filed by directors, expert directors, relatives and others of Rupee Co‑operative Bank Ltd seeking relief from an order dated 2 February 2016 made by the Authorized Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, …
The Bombay High Court considered a series of writ petitions filed by directors, expert directors, relatives and others of Rupee Co‑operative Bank Ltd seeking relief from an order dated 2 February 2016 made by the Authorized Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, …
The Bombay High Court considered a series of writ petitions filed by directors, expert directors, relatives and others of Rupee Co‑operative Bank Ltd seeking relief from an order dated 2 February 2016 made by the Authorized Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, …
The Bombay High Court considered a series of writ petitions filed by directors, expert directors, relatives and others of Rupee Co‑operative Bank Ltd seeking relief from an order dated 2 February 2016 made by the Authorized Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, …
The Bombay High Court considered a series of writ petitions filed by directors, expert directors, relatives and others of Rupee Co‑operative Bank Ltd seeking relief from an order of the Authorized Officer dated 2 February 2016 made under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 …
The High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court granted liberty to approach the Court. The petitioners argued that paragraph 68(vi) of the earlier judgment required a fixed formula for apportioning individual liability under Section …
The High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court granted liberty to approach the Court. The petitioners argued that paragraph 68(vi) of the earlier judgment required a fixed formula for apportioning individual liability under Section …
The Bombay High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court allowed them to seek review of the Court's October 17, 2025 judgment concerning liability under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioners argued …
The High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court granted liberty to approach the Court. The petitioners argued that paragraph 68(vi) of the earlier judgment required a fixed formula for apportioning individual liability under Section …
The Bombay High Court considered a batch of review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court permitted such review of a judgment dated 17 October 2025. The petitioners argued that paragraph 68(vi) of the judgment left no clear formula for apportioning individual …
The Bombay High Court considered a batch of review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court permitted such review of a judgment dated 17 October 2025. The petitioners argued that paragraph 68(vi) of the judgment left no clear formula for apportioning individual …
The High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court granted liberty to approach the Court. The petitioners argued that paragraph 68(vi) of the earlier judgment required a fixed formula for apportioning individual liability under Section …
The Bombay High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court granted liberty to approach the Court. The petitioners argued that paragraph 68(vi) of the earlier judgment required a fixed formula for apportioning individual liability under …
The High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court granted liberty to approach the Court. The petitioners argued that paragraph 68(vi) of the earlier judgment required a fixed formula for apportioning individual liability under Section …
The High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court granted liberty to approach the Court. The petitioners argued that paragraph 68(vi) of the earlier judgment required a fixed formula for apportioning individual liability under Section …
The Bombay High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court allowed them to seek review of the Court's October 17, 2025 judgment concerning liability under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioners argued …
The Bombay High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court allowed them to seek review of the Court's October 17, 2025 judgment concerning liability under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioners argued …
The High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court permitted such review. The petitioners argued that paragraph 68(vi) of the earlier judgment left no clear formula for apportioning individual liability under Section 88, and that mens …
The Bombay High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court allowed them to seek review of the Court's October 17, 2025 judgment concerning liability under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioners argued …
The Bombay High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court allowed them to seek review of the Court's October 17, 2025 judgment concerning liability under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioners argued …
The petitioner challenged an order dated 8 July 2022 issued by the District Magistrate under Rule 107‑11(d‑1)(vi) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. The Court examined whether such an order, deemed executionary and devoid of discretionary power, could be subject to judicial review …
The petitioners challenged three orders of attachment issued by a cooperative credit society, asserting ownership and borrowing rights over the property. The Court examined the procedural framework under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, which mandates that objections to …
The petitioners, cooperative banks under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, challenged a finding of the Revisional Authority that Section 154(2A) of the Act does not bar a revision against an attachment order issued under sub‑rule 11 of Rule 107. They argued that such a finding, if treated …
The petitioners, cooperative banks under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, challenged a finding of the Revisional Authority that Section 154(2A) of the Act does not bar a revision against an attachment order issued under sub‑rule 11 of Rule 107. They argued that such a finding, if treated …
The petitioner, The Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd., challenged an attachment order issued by a Special Recovery Officer under sub‑rule (19) of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. The respondents had earlier obtained a stay on the attachment order through a revision …
The Supreme Court examined a dispute where two firms (the appellants) were occupying rooms in a flat allotted to a member of a tenant co‑partnership housing society. The member had inducted the firms as tenants without the society’s consent, allegedly violating Section 29(2) of the Maharashtra …
The elected directors of Sanjay Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. requisitioned a special meeting of the Board to consider a no‑confidence motion against the Chairman. The Registrar issued notice of the meeting only to the elected directors, omitting the nominees of financial institutions and the …
