* Registrar’s Power to enforce performance of obligations. Powers of Registrar to direct society to keep proper books of accounts etc., [Section 79(1)]
As per Section 79(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Registrar may direct any society or class of societies, to keep proper books of accounts with respect to all sums of money received and expended by the society, and the matters in respect of which receipt and expenditure take place all sales and purchase of goods by the society, and the assets and liabilities of the society, and to furnish such statements and returns and to produce such records as he may require from time to time; and the officer or officers of the society shall be bound to comply with his order within the period specified therein.
Powers of the Register to take action at the expense of the society when the society fails to take action [Section 79(2)]
As per Section 79(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, where any society is required to take any action under this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, or to comply with an order made under the foregoing sub-section, and such action in not taken—
(a) within the time provided in this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, or the order as the case may be, or (b) where no time is so provided, within such time, having regard to the nature and extent of the action to be taken, as the Registrar may specify by notice in writing,
the Registrar may himself, or through a person authorised by him, take such action, at the expense of the society; and such expense shall be recoverable from the society as if it were an arrears of land revenue.
Power of Registrar to burden the delinquent officers with the expenses incurred etc; [Section 79(3)]
As per Section 79(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, where the Registrar take action under sub-section (2), the Registrar may call upon the officer or officers of the society whom he considers to be responsible for not complying with the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, or the order made under sub-section (1) and after giving such officer or officers an opportunity of being heard, may required him or them to pay to the society the expenses paid or payable by it to the State Government as a result of their failure to take action and to pay to the assets of the society such sum not exceeding twenty-five rupees as the Registrar may think fit for each day until the
Registrar’s directions are carried out.
*Registered Bye-laws of the Society—Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991—change of User—User of Garage for non-parking purposes—whether permissible.
“ It is thus clear from this provisions that in a residential zone the premises can be used with a special permission of the Commissioner in case of repairing garages not employing mere than 9 persons and 2 H.P. motive power. It has to be noted that in the present case when the Commissioner visited the site he found 5 to 6 persons sitting in the garage and the respondent has also stated the same thing in his affidavit. However, no work of manufacturing or repairing is done in the garage. Hence, the question is whether the permission of the commissioner will be necessary. Even in respect of repairs it can be said that no repairs are carried out in the garage itself but the repairs are carried out outside the garage when the customers come. It appears that the workers are sent to the car itself and the repairs are carried out. In these circumstances it is doubtful whether it can be said that the garage is used as a repairing garage. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the respondent is manufacturing the Air Conditioners for vehicles and upholstery.
It is an admitted fact the Appellant is using the said garage for non-parking purpose right from 1981. Similarly the other garages are also not used for car parking. As mentioned above, some of them are used for residential purpose and some are used for other purposes mainly because no cars can enter the garages on account of the height of the underground water tank. It is thus clear that the Society itself has created a sort of obstacle in the way of the garage owners and has made it impossible to use the garages for parking purposes.
Admittedly, on the date on which the injunction application was moved the garage was not used for parking purpose. Similarly the other garages are not used for parking purposes. If so by granting an injunction in favour of the Society we shall be disturbing the status quo as it was on the date of filling of the dispute, which is not permissible. Moreover, the society has not taken action against the other garage owners who are using their garages for purposes other than car parking. It has to be noted that only the appellant is chosen and singed out for litigation. The Managing Committee of the Society will have to explain as to why the action against other garage owners is not taken. The society will have to explain as to how it can take action against the garage owners when by the act of the society itself it has made the garage owners unable to use the garages for parking purposes.
There is nothing in clause 5 of the Regulations in Form ‘A’ to prevent the member from using the Garage for non-parking purpose.
There is nothing is Regulation No.14 to warrant an inference that the garage cannot be used for non-parking purpose. Moreover, it is not the case of the Society that by using the garage for non-parking purposes the respondent has caused nuisance”. [Madhav C. H.S. Ltd., vs. Suresh G. Gurnani, reported in 1987 C.T.J. 729 (M.S.C. Appellate Court)].
Note: The Hon’ble M.S.C. Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal which was filed by the Society, against the impugned order of the trial court, vacating the ad-interim injunction earlier issued against the Opponent-Respondent member ad the Order of the trial court was confirmed.