- (1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-op. Societies, 'm' Ward. Kokan Bhavan, new Bombay under Section 79 (2) of the M. C. S Act 20. 8. 1990 by which he directed the Secretary of the Appellant Society to reincorporate the name of the Respondent No. 2 i. e. S. T. Wagh in the membership Register, List of Members and other records of the society, issue Share Certificate in favour of Shri S. T. Wagh within 15 days and report compliance.
(2.) THE main contention of Mr. Phal is that the Respondent No. 2 is one of the members those name was approved, by the Additional Collector, b. S. D. , in terms of the said grant of land to the appellant and for enrolling him as a member of the society and allotting a flat to him in the building to be constructed by the appellant society in the said land. It was noticed by the appellant society subsequently after registration that the respondent No. 2 had not signed the application for registration though his name appeared in the application for registration in Form'a' submitted by the then Chief Promoter of the proposed society to the Respondent no. 1. Therefore, the case of the Respondent No. 2 was hit by the provisions of bye-law No. 6 of the registered bye-laws of the society and hence the society passed the Resolution on 6. 10. 1986 that the Respondent No 2 had not signed the application for registration and he cannot be the original member By the said Resolution the society directed the Respondent No. 2 to apply for membership of the society in the prescribed form and to pay all the dues of the appellant society and to comply with the other legal requirements, etc. It appears that the Respondent No. 2 approached the assistant Registrar and the Assistant Registrar after hearing the parties passed the impugned order.
(3.) THE Assistant Registrar has gone through the entire file of the society and observed that the name of the Respondent No. 2 was pproved along with other promoters by the Collector of Bombay and he was called for the general body meeting and he was attending the said meetings. The society issued him a letter dated 17. 8 1984 stating that he is a member of the society and hence the society should have followed the provisions of section 35 of the Act and the Resolution passed by the society dated 6. 10. 1986 was improper and ineffective and the action of the managing committee in deleting the name of the Respondent No. 2 from the membership register and cancellation of the share certificate is not according to law and hence he directed the society to treat him as a member and include his name and issue share certificate, etc.;