Cooperative Society

2025 SCMR 485 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.54Cooperative societyNon-allotment of plot

Petitioner/Defence Housing Authority after merger with Cooperative Society did not issue allotment letter to respondent/allottee who was member of the Cooperative Society

Validity

After merger of the Society with petitioner/Authority, it was for petitioner/Authority to resolve all issues of owners/allottees without fail

Agreement between the Society and petitioner/Authority was dated 12-08-2006, whereas respondent/allottee had accrued rights since year 1990 on the strength of allotment

Respondent/allottee was un-necessarily dragged into litigation in presence of agreement

Such fact was visible from orders passed by Registrar and Secretary

Petitioner/Authority had set a bad example of frivolous and futile exercise despite clear-cut provision of agreement

Respondent/allottee who suffered at the hands of Society and Authority would be at liberty to initiate legal course of action

High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

2023 PTD 351 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.3 & 5Cooperative SocietyStatusSociety is a juristic person and body incorporated and formed under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925

As legal personality of society registered under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 becomes distinct from personality of natural persons who come together to create the society, it becomes a body corporate formed as a legal person by virtue of its registration under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.

2014 YLR 2279 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Election of Co-operative societyEligibilityVoting rightsRespondent was co-owner of plot situated in society in question and possessed rights of membershipAuthorities allowed respondent to contest election for Executive Committee of the societyValidity

Requirement of exclusive ownership for such candidacy would permit eligibility to person who were either original members or purchasers of property in one name

Price of urban land had gone high and requirement of exclusive ownership would block resident members who were co-owners from contesting in management of society

Public policy nor public interest favoured that wealth of a member should outweigh other qualities of representation, including leadership and public service profile of candidates

In the interest of justice, nominee co-owner was permitted to contest election of society

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by authorities

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.