This was challenged before the Patna High Court by a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
From the Judgement and Order dated 30.7.1984 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.
Thus without companysidering the other questions raised by the parties, the High Court allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgement which is under challenge in the present appeal.
So far section 40 was companycerned, it was pointed out that the claim had to be rejected on the ground of limitation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Assistant Registrar absolved the respondent No.1 from the alleged liability and an appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 48 6 of the Act before the Joint Registrar, Co operative Societies, respondent No.2, who are accepted the appellants case, rejected the defence and made an award accordingly.
3047 of 1992.
The respondent No.1 was Depot Manager under the appellant Marketing Union Limited and during his tenure as such, a shortage of companyl was detected.
K. Srivastava for the Respondents.
L. Verma and S.K. Sinha for the Appellant.
Special leave is granted The facts relevant for the decision of this appeal are in a short companypass.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. The question arising in this case is whether a matter, if it companyes within the scope of section 40 of the Bihar and Orissa Co operative Societies Act, 1935 hereinafter referred to as the Act has to be excluded from the purview of Section 48 of the Act.
