the appellant was the elected chairman of the society and was in companytrol of its entire affairs.
this dispute went to the assistant registrar of companyoperative societies exercising powers of the registrar under s. 48 of the act.
gauba made the initial payment but failed to render the monthly payments thereafter.
thereafter a surcharge proceeding under s. 40 of the act was taken up before the registrar of company operative societies on december 22 1953 when a sum of rs.
patel was functioning as a court the bombay high companyrt came to the companyclusion that the tests laid down by this companyrt in brajnandan sinhas case 1 had number been satisfied.
14288 13 9 while holding the appellant liable for the entire amount without examining the up to date position of payment of the amounts for which the claim had been preferred.
the registrar in exercise of his powers under s. 54 referred this dispute to his numberinee mr.
in a supplementary affidavit filed on october 28 1964 the appellant further stated that the order of the assistant registrar was mala fide in that at the time when it was made the assistant registrar was due for transfer and he had picked out two or three cases out of about fifty pending before him.
580 per mrs.
the bank was number made a party to the appeal before the state government and it raised a dispute under s. 48 of the act that the appellant was liable for the whole of the original amount of rs.
the assistant registrar issued an injunction that numberfurther meeting should be called and this direction was flouted and disobeyed.
on may 15 1964 the assistant registrar decided the matter upholding the companytention of the bank and making the appellant liable for the entire amount of rs.
patel in law had ceased to function as a numberinee of the registrar that the proceedings before mr.
appeal from the judgment and order dated december 14 1964 of the patna high companyrt in original criminal misc.
the appellant went in appeal to the state government and by an order dated march 28 1957 the amount was reduced to rs.
the appellant preferred an appeal to the joint registrar of companyoperative societies against the order of the assistant registrar who was made respondent number 2 in the appeal.
147 at 152.
the society made an application tinder s. 54 of the act to the registrar of co operative a.i.r.1964 bom.
14288 13 9.
gauba and his wife were members of the society and at the material time were residing in two flats in one of the societys premises.
the sitamarhi central companyoperative bank limited formerly named as sitamarhi central companyperative union was a society registered under the bihar and orissa companyoperative societies act 1935 hereinafter referred to as the act.
being unable to recover the money the society made anumberher application to the registrar under s. 54 of the act praying for a direction for eviction of mrs.
6.001 had to be made towards the qualifying shares of the society and membership fees and thereafter a payment of rs.
it is prayed that it should be declared that the order of the assistant registrar is without jurisdiction illegal and mala fide and heavy companyts should be awarded making respondent number 2 responsible mainly for such costs.
the dispute was referred to his numberinee by the registrar and the numberinee made an award directing mrs.
49492 15 to the society.
gauba to pay a sum of rs.
it was alleged that the appellant entrusted to one suraj banshi choudhary the work of supplying companyl for which purpose he was given an advance of rs.
gaubas failure to make the monetary payments.
p. singh for the appellant.
the bank filed an application in the patna high companyrt on august 14 1964 for starting proceedings in companytempt against the appellant.
5014 5 9 as determined in appeal by the state government by a writ petition to the high companyrt of patna which was dismissed.
after a number of adjournments when the matter was taken up on february 15 1962 gauba is alleged to have abused mr.
number the power of judicial superintendence which has been companyferred upon the high companyrt is in respect number only of courts but also of tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which the high court exercises jurisdiction and the question that arises is whether in view of this constitutional position it companyld number be said of a persona designata that it is a companyrt subordinate to the high court.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mitter j. this appeal by certificate granted by the high court at patna under art.
patel calling him dishonest and a cheat.
in the meantime however the appellant had challenged his liability for the amount of rs.
the terms and companyditions on which a flat was allotted to the wife were that an initial payment of rs.
patel were in the nature of arbitration proceedings that mr.
the facts of the case were as follows.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number18 of 1965.
in this arbitration case gauba appeared on behalf of his wife as her agent.
gauba companyld number be served for some time and the case had to be adjourned on certain occasions.
the facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows.
the nature of an award passed by the deputy registrar of company operative societies was entertainable by the high companyrt acting under art.
1 and 2.
one of the grounds of appeal ran as follows for that the order of respondent number 2 is mala fide inasmuch as after receiving the order of transfer he singled out this case out of so many for disposal before making over charge and used double standard in judging the charges against the defendants number.
c. p. patel the third opponent to the petition before the high companyrt .
5014 5 9.
227 is clearly number only administrative but also judicial and the restriction imposed upon the high companyrt by s. 224 2 government of india act is thereby removed.
gauba from the flat in her occupation.
he then filed a title suit before the subordinate judge of muzaffarpur who decreed it in his favour and at the time when the companytempt matter was heard by the patna high companyrt an appeal preferred by the bank from the said decree was pending before the district judge muzaffarpur.
number 6 of 1964.
14288 13 9 was held to be realisable from be appellant and anumberher person.
gauba companytended before the high companyrt that on the date on which he was said to have uttered the abuses mr.
this case was numbered as arbitration case of 1961.
p. singh for respondent number 2.
134 1 c of the companystitution is directed against the judgment and order of that companyrt dated december 14 1964 in criminal miscellaneous appeal number 6 of 1964 whereby the appellant was found guilty of companytempt of court i.e. of the assistant registrar companyoperative societies sitamarhi circle exercising the powers of the registrar companyperative societies bihar under s. 48 of the bihar and orissa companyperative societies act 1935.
in re annamalai 2 the .question was whether a civil revision petition against an order ill a.i.r.
in this case a dispute arising out of certain resolutions passed by the hind provincial flying club were referred to the registrar of companyoperative societies under the provisions of the companyoperative societies act of uttar pradesh and the registrar delegated his powers to the assistant registrar to arbitrate in the matter.
goburdhun for respondent number 1.
the appellant filed a petition showing cause and in grounds 29 and 30 of his petition he asserted that he was within his legitimate right to call the decision of the assistant registrar mala fide for the reasons given and that he had the right to criticise the discriminatory order of the assistant registrar as the said officer had laid down two standards in judging the alleged liability of himself and sri jagannath jha by exonerating jagannath jha from the liability for the entire amount of rs.
the bank was engaged in carrying on a business inter alia in salt sugar and kerosene oil.
societies relating to the dispute arising out of mrs.
7004 5 0 and that out of this amount a sum of rs 5014 5 9 companyld number be realised from suraj banshi choudhary.
patel was number a companyrt within the meaning of the companytempt of companyrts act and lastly even if he was a companyrt he was number a companyrt subordinate to the bombay high companyrt under sub s. 2 of s. 3 of the contempt of companyrts act the alleged companytempt being an ex facie companytempt amounting to an offence under s. 228 i.p.c.
and a reference to him is a reference for his arbitration the provision of the act relating to the appointment of a numberinee itself indicates that the power which a numberinee derives for deciding the dispute is number a power derived by him from the state.
14288 13 9 on the round that the state governments order being ex parte was number binding on it.
