Wednesday 8 January 2014

CASELAWS REPORTED IN ALL INDIA COOPERATIVE LAW DIGEST - PART 6

PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE CASELAWS ARE NOT CORRECTLY PROOFREAD WITH ORIGINALS. SO KINDLY MAKE SURE THAT THEY MATCH WITH THE ORIGINALS



Contribution
Clause (f) of Section 42(2) covers only debts and liabilities but does not cover orders for contribution. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 42(2)(b) and (f)).
A.I.R. 1956 Nagpur 183
Contribution pre-supposes existing liability. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 42).
A.I.R. 1942 Lahore 237
Order of the liquidator determining the contribution to be made by the members and past members of the Society respectively to the assets of the Society is not binding upon a person who has not received any notice about the proceeding. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912,) Section 42 (2)(b)).
A.I.R. 1955 Nag. 262 = ILR (1956) Nag. 51 = 1955 Nag. L.J. 649
A contributory order passed by a liquidator being enforceable as a decree, an objection, that the order was invalid because of the omission to give notice to a member cannot be entertained. (Co-op. Societies Act, 1912, Section 42(5)).
A.I.R. 1955 Nag. 262 = I.L.R. (1956) Nag. 51
A member or a past member is not under any liability to contribute to the assets of the Society when his shares are fully paid up. (Co-op. Societies Act, 1912) Section 42(4-A) as inserted by U.P. Act (3 of 1919)).
A.I.R. 1959 Allahabad 733
The person appointed as Secretary in contravention of a prescribed conditions could be removed from his office only the the Registrar of the Society. (Uttar Pradesh Co-op. Societies Act (11 of 1966 Section 120(2)).
I.L.R. (1977) 2 All. 412 = 1977 Lab. I.C. (NOC) 134
The obligation under Section 69A (4), if any, of any notified Society is to contribute annually to the ‘Fund’ established by the Apex Society and not to any Fund. The Apex Society not having established any such Fund till this date, the petitioner notified Society was under no legal obligation to pay or make any contribution to any such Fund. The demand thus being ill-founded is illegal and ineffective and unenforceable against the petitioner. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (24 of 1961), Section 69A (3)).
A.I.R. 1982 Bombay 199 = 86 Bom. L.R. 284

Consumer Society
A consumer Society as defined in Section 2(9) of the Act whose main area of operation is in Sholapur City is certainly an urban Society. (Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act (24 of 1961) Sections 2 and 22).
1980 Mah. L.J. 75
Where a fruit growing and preserving Co-operative Society filed a suit against the defendants for damages for breach of contract and the defendants filed a counter-claim it was held the counter-claim could not be considered as a cross-suit requires a notice to the co-operative society under Section 76 of the Act. (Himachal Pradesh Co-op. Societies Act (3 of 1969) S. 76).
A.I.R. 1984 Himachal Pradesh 18 = 1984 Sim. LC 92

Conditional Legislation
The distinction between conditional legislation and delegated legislation is this that in the former the delegate’s power is that of determining when a legislature declared rule of conduct shall become effective. (Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act, (24 of 1961), Section 73 BB).
A.I.R. 1983 Bombay 317
Section 73 BB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is a piece of conditional legislation. (Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act, (24 of 1961), Section 73BB.
A.I.R. 1983 Bombay 317

Condition Precedent.
Order of suspension-Enquiry and inspection under Section 60 and 61 a condition precedent. (Assam Co-op. Societies Act, 1949, Section 36 (1), 60 and 61 (As extended to State of Manipur).
1976 Assam L.R. 277 (Gauhati)
Section is in the nature of a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of suit and even assuming for this purpose that ‘suit’ would include a proceeding under Section 5, Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, (Bombay Co-op. Societies Act, 1925, Section 70).
A.I.R. 1958 Calcutta 675
Before an order superseding the committee is passed the Registrar must consult the financing bank and the circle or State co-operative union as the case may be. All these are conditions precedent for the exercise of the power of supersession. No doubt whether these conditions exist or not it is for the Registrar to be satisfied. No doubt the satisfaction may be subjective, but it shall not be arbitrary. The scope of the enquiry by the court into his satisfaction regarding the existence of otherwise of the circumstances referred to in the section is limited in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court will not function as an Appellate Authority and investigate into the sufficiency of the materials on which the Registrar has arrived at the satisfaction referred to in sub-section (1). If the contention is that the Registrar never applied his mind and therefore he could not have been satisfied, the Court can enter into that question, the ingredient of satisfaction being the condition precedent to the exercise of power. If the power exercised is for a purpose or with an intention beyond the scope and contemplation of the provision the action is liable to be interfered with on the ground that it constitutes fraud on the power granted by the Statute. The order of a statutory authority can also be challenged if it is shown that the action was taken on grounds or materials totally irrelevant to the purpose and intention of the State or that relevant matters have not been considered or that the grounds or evidence on th basis of which the authority acted are such that no one could reasonably arrive on such basis at the opinion or satisfaction required under the Legislation. (Kerala Co-op. Societies Act (21 of 1969), Section 32).
A.I.R. 1982 Kerala 12 = 1982 (18) Co-op. L.J. 9

Conditions of Expulsion
Rule 18(2) confers on Registrar a power to expel a member if the conditions laid down there in are fulfilled. (Madhya Pradesh Co-op. Societies Act, 1961, Section 19).
1971 Jab. L.J. 924

Conferment of Power
Punjab Co-operative Societies, Rules, 1963-Rules 25 and 26-Jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar to take action under Rules 25 and 26-Assistant Registrar is not competent to exercise any of the powers of Registrar unless they are specifically conferred on him. (Punjab Co-op. Societies Act, 1961.
1973 PLJ 744
Conferment of power carries with it duty to act reasonably. (Mysore Co-op. Societies Act (52 of 1948), S. 54).
A.I.R. 1971 Mysore 37 = (1970) 1 Mys. L.J. 328
Assistant Registrar could not act as Registrar unless power of Registrar is conferred on him. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1966), Section 2 (r)).
1970 All. L.J. 910
Section confer wide powers on the Government to revise the orders of any officer who is subordinate to them. It is competent for the Government to revise the orders of the Registrar passed under Section 57 of the Act. (Madras Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1932), Section 57).
I.L.R. (1959) Andh. 639 = 1959 An. L.T. 784 = (1959) 2 An. W.R. 332
Order confirming auction sale passed by Assistant Registrar-Order was under Section 1 1(2) and Deputy Registrar is the immediate superior officer to Assistant Registrar. (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 106 (1) (i) and (2) (b) (as amended by Amendment Act 40 of 1964) and 101 (2)).
(1978) 14 Co-op. L.J. 361 = (1978) 2 Kant. L.J. 13

Confirmation of Sale
The revisional authority exercising the powers vested in him under Section 57 of the Act can certainly go into the question of the legality, regularity or propriety of the order of the Deputy Registrar, confirming a sale and to set aside that order as improper if the Deputy Registrar did not take into account the inadequacy of price when confirming the sale. (Madras Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1932), Section 57).
A.I.R. 1955 N.U.C. (Madras) 5948
Confirmation of sale-No necessity for auction purchaser for acquiring prior membership of Co-operative Society. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), Section 105.
(1978) 80 Bom L.R. 585

Conflict between two Provisions
Conflict between two provision f a statute-Duty of Court-Held that Court is under duty to adopt interpretation by which two provisions can be reconciled. Held further that repeal of one provision by another arises only when two of them are wholly incompatible with one another, or when read together they would lead to wholly absurd consequence. (Punjab  Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1976 PLJ 491

Conflict Relating to Election
Conflict relating to election-Special rules in Chapter 29 relating to elections will prevail over the general Rule 105. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1966), Section 130).
1971 All L.J. 504

Conflict between Rules & Bye-law
Rules must be followed in preference to bye-law in event of conflict between the two. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 43).
A.I.R. 1938 Lahore 8

Conflict with Statute
In case of conflict with statute or rules under State, bye-laws must give in and Act and Rules must prevail. (Orissa Co-operative Societies  Rules, 1965, Rule 30-A(2)).
(1974) 40 Cut. L.T. 441

Conflict between Wages
Conflict between Section 15, Payment of Wages Act and Section 54, Bombay Co-op. Societies Act-Former prevails. (Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 Section 54).
A.I.R. 1962 Bombay 162

Doctrine of Acquiescence
Before the bye-laws can be amended due notice of the specific amendment which is sought to be made must be given to the members-The doctrine of acquiescence did not apply to the case. (Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965, Rule 6, proviso Clause (a). 
I.L.R. (1970) Gujarat 1105

Doctrine of Estoppel
-Principles underlying Section 41 are applicable to State of Punjab through section as such not applicable-Equitable doctrine of estopped provides exception to rule that no man can transfer to another a right or title great than what he himself possesses. (Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1976 PLJ 100

Doctrine of de-facto Exercise of Power
Board of Directors filing a writ petition in the High Court and obtaining a stay order on 3rd, June, 1983-Stay order vacated on 14th July, 1984-Meeting held on 22nd. June, 1983 held to be without jurisdiction -Doctrine of de facto and dejure exercise of power-Doctrine of de facto exercise of power cannot be re-sorted to proceedings for the purpose of validating executive action-Proceedings held on June 22, 1983 illegal-Doctrine applicable only to judicial action. (Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sections 26 (1) (27, 29 and 30).
1984 (2) All India Land Laws Reporter 55

Doctrine of Lis pendens
-When Registrar issues certificate under Section 59 (1)(b) cannot be said that the transaction is hit by the doctrine of its pendens. (Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, Sec. 59 (1)(b).
I.L.R. (1950) Mys. 242

Doctrine of Incompatibility
Object-Provisions incorporate doctrine of incompatibility of holding elective office by persons financially interested in affairs of Society (Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules 1964, Rule 24-A).
(1979) 2 Andh. W.R. 157

Doctrine of Merger
Doctrine of merger-Order of arbitrator declaring ownership and granting possession set aside by Assistant Registrar-Arbitrator’s order merges in it and loses its identity. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1966), Section 134).
1979 All. L.J. 863

Duty to Act
Conferment of power carries with it duty to act reasonably. (Mysore Co-operative Societies Act (52 of 1948), Section 54).
A.I.R. 1971 Mysore 37 = (1970) 1 Mys. L.J. 328
Duties of statutory bodies-Inclusion by secretary of subject in violation of bye-laws-Could be corrected under Article 226. (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 29-A).
(1979) 1 Kant. L.J. 299

Dismissal
Rule applies only if dismissal on ground of misconduct. (Mysore Co-operative Societies Rules, 1952, Rule 62, Clause (10).
(1970) 6 Co-op. L.J. 115 (Mysore)
A member is not a salaried employee of the society and is not liable to be dismissed from membership without regard to the provisions of the Act and bye-law, as well as the principles of natural justice. (Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, (52 of 1948), Section 52).
A.I.R. 1954 Mysore 59 = I.L.R. Mys. (1953) Mys. 508 = 33 Mys. L.J. 137
Dismissal of appeal as time barred without adverting to the Explanation given in Grounds of Appeal for filing appeal beyond period of limitation-Appeal should not have been dismissed on ground of limitation-Civil Writ Petition.
No. 315 of 1678 Ziles Singh V. State of Haryana

Decree
-Executing Court cannot go behind decree unless it comes to the conclusion that the same is nullity-No Decree is a nullity if, the Court that passed it had inherent jurisdiction, and parties involved were duly represented-Decree considered to be non -est and a nullity if Court having no jurisdiction, or against a dead person, or person aginst whom passed at no state legally present before Court. (Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1979 All Land Laws Reporter 380
Award can be enforced as decree. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 43).
A.I.R. 1945 Nagpur 281
Decree against Co-operative Society cannot be executed against a share-holder in his individual capacity. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 Section 18).
A.I.R. 1934 Madras 181. Madras 181
Award obtained by a Co-operative Society is decree in view Section 76. (Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, Section 76).
A.I.R. 1976 Kerala 1
Awards under Section 100 are deemed to be decree of Civil Court. (Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (13 of 1956), section 100 read with first Schedule Entry No. 3 and Rule 92 of H.P.Co-op. Societies Rules).
I.L.R. (1973) Himachal Pradesh 210
Even though other partners of the concerned two firms were not liable and no decree can be passed against the concerned two firms as such the respective two partners who had signed the surely bond would remain personally liable to answer the suit claim as sureties. Decree can be passed against these two partners, even though further relief cannot be granted against the remaining partners of the said two firms. (Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (10 of 1962), Section 96).
A.I.R. 1985 Gujarat 106 = 1985 (1) 26 Guj. L.R. 49
Amendment abolishing of arbitration award as a decree of Civil Court-Pending proceedings not affected. (Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (3 of 1969), Section 87 (as amended in 1972).
A.I.R. 1977 Himachal Pradesh 35 = I.L.R. (1976) Himachal Pradesh 319 = (1977) 13 Co-op. L.J. 47
Any decree of a Civil Court which has held an order of a liquidator without jurisdiction shall be of no effect. (C.P. and Berar Co-operative Societies Amendment and Liquidators’ Orders Validation Act (10 of 1945), Section 3).
1951 Nag. L.J. 175
An award is on the same footing as a decree of the Court for purpose of execution. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, Rule 137).
A.I.R. 1967 Allahabad 281
The certificate being the basis for the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be attracted only after it is granted and, by virtue of the grant, it becomes a decree and not before. (Mysore Co-operative Societies Act (52 of 1948), Section 65).
A.I.R. 1954 Mysore 54 = I.L.R. (1954) Mysore 288 = 33 Mys. L.J. 168
Decree-holders can only attach such property which they claim and succeed in showing as the property of the deceased in the hands of judgment-debtors to that award. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies act, 1961, Sections 163 and 164).
1984 C.T.J. 6

Determination of Liability
Liquidator determining the liability under the Act is to act in a quasi-judicial capacity-Should pass a speaking order after hearing the parties-Order should be a reasoned order. (Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sec. 58, 59).
1983 (1) All India Land Laws Reporter 568
Liability-Determination of-Jurisdiction regarding vests in Registrar of Arbitrator-Held that jurisdiction regarding recovery and enforcement of award is specifically vested in Civil Court. (Sec. 82, Punjab Co-op. Societies Act, 1961).
1975 P.L.J. 162
Section 59-B does not relate only to the mode of recovery but also entitles the authorities mentioned therein to determine liability of any of the parties if that liability is disputed. (Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, Sections 54, 59 and 59-B).
(1962) 3 Guj. L.R. 770
Liability determination of regarding each member to pay-Nature of-Quasi-judicial-Incumbent on Liquidator to issue sho cause notice before determining liability-Punjab Co-operative societies Rules, 1963-Rules 58 and 59. (Sec. 59, Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1976 P.L.J. 195
Liquidator determining the liability under the Act is to act in a quasi-judicial capacity-Should pass a speaking order after hearing the parties-Order should be a reasoned order. (Sec. 58, Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1983 (1) All India Land Laws Reporter 568
Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules 1963-Rules 58 and 59-Determination of liability to pay to each member-Duties of liquidator. (Sec. 59, Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1971 P.L.J. 922

Determination o Dispute
The intention of the legislature that when the dispute is determined solely either by the Registrar or his nominee, they render a decision which is not to be mixed up and has to be contrasted to an award made by the Committee  of three arbitrators preside over either by the Registrar or his nominee. (Bombay Co-operative Societies Act (7 of 1925), (as extended to Union Territory of Delhi), Section 54).
A.I.R. 1982 Delhi 335 = 1982 (22) D.L.T. 87

Determination of Statutory Term
The Explanation in Section 28(1-a) introduced by amendment  refers to normal course of events i.e. where the elected body is put into office and provides the manner of computation of the period of tenure with reference to entering into office. The purport of the Explanation is to legislatively indicate the time for computation of the period of 4 years which is the statutory term fixed by amendment. It cannot cover cases where the elected body is kept out of office under orders of the Court. Applying the Explanation to such a case is bound to create both confusion and hardship. It could not have been the intention of the legislature in providing the Explanation to take away the right of the elected body to be in office and the term to expire even though not for a single day the elected Board would have been in office. The legislature on the other hand clearly intends that the newly elected body is to function and the calculation in the Explanation is form the angle of vision of the functional approach. As such where there is an order of stay arising out of a dispute and the successful Board is kept out of office, that period cannot be taken into account in determination of statutory term of 4 years. (Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, (2 of 1963), Section 21 (a) Expln. (as inserted by Orissa Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance (4 of 1981)).
A.I.R. 1983 Orissa 105 = 1983 (19) Co.op. L.J. 171 

Disqualification
The Disqualification in Rule 26 are clearly post election disqualification-It does not take note of the disqualification which are there as the time of election-Person once elected if incurs disqualification which would have prevented him from seeking election then the remedy for his removal & is arbitration proceedings is in that contingency only provision applicable is Rule 26 of the Rules. The rule for its applicability clearly postulates that delinquent already is a member of Managing Committee: and he has after his election incurred any disqualification which would have prevented him from seeking election-Alleged disqualification if existed at the time when nomination papers filed-Action under Rule 26 not competent. (Rule 26, Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963).
1979 All India Land Laws Reporter 375
Scope of-Disqualification limited to election of Managing Committee of Primary Societies and not to election representatives of such Societies to Managing Committee (Directorship) of Apex body-Declaration by Deputy Registrar that he has ceased to be a Director because he was a defaulter having made delayed payments date-Order-Quashed. (Rules 25, Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules 1963).
1982 All India Land Laws Reporter 672
Text and tenor of two sub-rules similar-The lapse in disqualification under both is directly linked with Primary Societies-Reasonable to infer that like Rule 25 (f) scope of Rule 25 (a) also limited to election of Managing Committee of Primary & Societies and not to election of representatives of such Societies to Managing Committee of Apex Society. (Rule 25, Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963).
1982 All India Land Laws Reporter 672
Incurring of disqualification by default-Relevancy-Is of no consequences prior to holding of Poll-Status of proposer as voter Determination of-Should be without reference to disqualification of default-Law does not require that for proposer to be a person who is not in default to Co-operative Sociey-Instructions issued by Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab with his later No. Credit/CA3/72303-58 dated 25the October, 1969. (Rules 25, Punjab Co-operative Societies rules, 1963).
1976 P.L.J. 211
Interpretation of Moral Turpitude-Conviction under Section 304 India Penal Code does not involve any moral turpitude-Such a case not covered by Rule 25 (d) of the Rules. - Scope of Moral Turpitude-Conviction under Section 304-A.I.P.C. Held that conviction is not a disqualification as it does not involve any moral turpitude. (Rules 25, Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963).
1979 All India Land Laws Reporter 375
It is the only provision in the Rules which provides the disqualification for membership of the committee of a Co-operative Society-Clause (b) provides that Bye-Law of a Co-operative Society can also lay down disqualifications other than those mentioned in Rule 25. (Rules 25, Punjab Co-op. Societies Rules, 1963).
1979 All India Land Laws Reporter 375
Disqualification for membership-Defaulter under Rule 14 is also a defaulter within Rule 16(10(a). (Karnt. Co-op. Soc. Rules, 1960, Rule 14).
A.I.R. 1975 Karnataka 30
Elected member can be declared as disqualified under Rule 44 (1) (c) (i), (Kerala Co-op. Societies Rules, 1969, Rule 44).
(1975) 11 Co-op. L.J. 178 (Kerala)
Disqualification is attracted only if default continued for more than three months. (Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, Rule 44 (1) (c) (i).
A.I.R. 1974 Kerala 92 = (1973) 9 Co-op. L.J. 227 = 1975 Co-op. L.R.I.
A person who is disqualified or becomes disqualified to be a member of the Committee of a Society is liable to be declared as having ceased to be a member of the Committee of a Society from the date of such disqualification. (Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 21-A (b).  
(1971) 2 Andh. W.R. 148
Default must be in respect of a transaction of loan-A defaulter in respect of sale transaction cannot incur disqualification under the section. (Maharashtra Co-operative Service Rules, 1961, Rule 58 (1)(a)).
1978 Mah. L.J. 431
The disqualification under Rule 58(1)(a) operates the moment the loan is not repaid within the period specified therein and the member of the Managing Committee who has committed that default ceases to be a member any more. (Maha. Co-op. Societies Rules, 1966, Rule 58 (2) and (1)(a).
A.I.R. 1978 Bombay 62 = (1977) 13 Co-op. L.J. 220 = 79 Bom. L.R. 712
Disqualification for being a member is attracted in respect of default in payment of loan of any Society. (Andhra Pradesh Co-op. Societies Act. 1964, Sec. 21-A (b)).
(1971) 2 Andh. W.R. 148
On coming to the conclusion that a member of a committee has acted in contravention of the provisions contained in clauses (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) thereof, the authority may not only remove such member from the Committee of the concerned society, but, can also disqualify him from serving on the committee of the concerned society or holding any office in any  Co-operative Society, for a period not exceeding 3 years. By the impugned order, the petitioners have been disqualified from holding any office in any Co-operative Society for a period of 3 years. Consequently they cannot hold any office for a period of three years in the 2nd respondent Society also. When a statute gives several alternatives in the matter of awarding punishment, it is incumbent, upon the authority to find out having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, which one is appropriate to be imposed. Similarly, the period of punishment also is to be determined after taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances if any existing in the case. No doubt, one of the objects of inflicting punishment is to see that it acts as a deterrent. But, equally important principle of law is that the sentence should not be excessive. Thus, it is to be held that the period and extent of the disqualification to be imposed under Section 126-A of the Act, does not automatically follow the determination that a member of the committee has acted in contravention of the Bye-laws of the society or done anything coming within the purview of sub-clause (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) thereof. The duration and extent of the disqualification has to be determined on taking into consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances established in the case. (Kant. Co-op. Societies Act, 1959, Section 126-A).
A.I.R. 1981 Karnataka 185 = 1981 (1) Kant L.J. 473
Election Committee must act quasi-judicially and satisfy itself about existence of a disqualification ground either in the election rules in the bye-laws or in the rules under the Act. (Guj. Co-op. Societies Act (10 of (1962), Section 74).
(1973) 14 Guj. L.R. 786
Scope-Disqualification incurred prior to election-Dispute would be covered by Section 70 (1). (Kant. Co-op. Societies Act, 1959 Sec. 70(1)).
(1979) 1 Karnataka L.J. 124
Disqualifications imposed on seeking membership held to be reasonable restrictions. (A.P. Co-op. Societies Act, 1964, S. 21 (c) and 21-A (1) (g).
(1972) 1 Andhra L.T. 299
The disqualification can only become effective if there is an order of removal passed under Sec. 36. (Raj. Co-op. Societies Act (13 of 1965), Sections 34, 36).
1980 W.L.N. (U.C.) 345 (Raj.)
Default committee by Society-Joint Registrar passing an order whereby petitioner ceasing to be Director-Society depositing the amount prior to the date of Order-Contention of Society that the employees of the Society had gone on strike during the material period-Order o disqualification quashed. (Punjab Co-op. Societies Act,. 1961, Section 26).
1983 (2) All India Land Laws Reporter 133
Election of delegate-Society suffering from disqualification-Delegate ceases to be member of managing committee of the other society. (M.P.Co-op. Societies Rules, 1962, Rule 44 (h).
1969 Jab. L.J. 1016 = 1969 M.P.W.R. 654
Rule 24 (2), read with rule 23 (4) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 makes a person disqualified to be a member of the Managing Committee tee of a Society only if any proceeding for surcharge or an inquiry relating to any transaction of the Society is pending against him. (Bihar & Orissa Co-op. Societies Act, 1935, Section 66).
1960 B.L.J.R. 49
There was no provision in the Act, prior to the amendments effected by the Orissa Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act 1983 (Orissa Act 219 of 1983) for removal of an office-bearer who had incurred any disqualification under Section 28(4). (Orissa Co-op. Societies Act (2 of 1963), Section 28 (5) (before its amendment in 1983).
A.I.R. 1985 Orissa 62 = (1984) (1) Orissa Law Rev. 217
Any dispute relating to the election as a director, which capacity is described in the Rules as ‘Member of the Committee’ is a dispute touching the business of the society, as clarified by Explanation 8 to Rule 115. (U .P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936, Rules 115 and 8).
1963 All. L.J. 913
The statutory disqualification under Section 29(c) (1) extends not only to the specific Society in respect of which the disqualification order has been passed by the Registrar, but also disqualification would extend to election or appointment to the Committee of any other Co-operative Society. (Kant. Co-op. Societies Act, 1959, Section 29(c)(1)(a) Proviso.
I.L.R. (1979) 2 Kant. 1461 = (1979) 1 Kant. L.J. 431
No material before Deputy Registrar showing that the member was in default-Member cannot be disqualified. (Kerala Co-op. Societies Rules, 1969, Rule 44 (1) (c)).
1978 Ker. L.T. 887
Continuous period-Does not mean two terms-First tenure coming to an end on  26th August. 1976-Election held on 31st August, 1976-Stay order passed on 30th August, 1976, which remained in operation till 24th April, 1979 to 12th February, 1980-Six years not completed-No disqualification incurred unless six years completed-Provision to be strictly complied with. (Punjab Co-op. Societies Act, 1961 Section 26 (1-B).
1983 (1) All India Land Laws Reporter 598
An ill-advised civil action against a Society by a member cannot be regarded as sufficient reason to disqualify him. (Kerala Co-op. Societies Act, 1969, Section 69)- Kerala Co-op. Societies Rules, 1969, Rules 44 (2) (c) and 44 (2) (j).
I.L.R. (1977) 1 Kerala 195-1976 Ker. L.T. 92
Disqualification due to loan remaining unpaid for more than 3 months is not taken away by payment of arrears before Registrar passes order removing member from committee. (Madras Co-op. Societies Act (53 of 1961), Section 28).
(1970) 1 M.L.J. 197 = (1970) 6 Co-op. L.J. 166
Rule 27(2) (f) read with sub-rule (3) must yield to Rule 28 in accordance with the principle of leges posteriores contraries abrogant. (Later laws abrogate the prior contrary ones). Rule 27(3) and Rule (2) (f) (as it stood then) were general provisions which had come into existence earlier than Rule 28 (bb), Rule 28 being a special rule applicable to the disqualifications of institution, Rule 27 would be deemed to have yielded to Rule 28 to the extent of the conflict. (Madras Co-op. Societies Act (6 of 1932), Sec. 65 (Prior to its Repeal by Act 53 of 1961) & Rules made under, Rules 27 & 28).
I.L.R. (1967) Andhra Pradesh 468
The provisions of Section 73BB and of the Government Resolution No. CSL 1577/14599-15C dated September 13, 1977, cannot be implemented or enforced in the case of a Co-operative Society which has not voluntarily done so unless the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules. 1961, are amended by the State Government or the bye-laws of the concerned Society are amended by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in pursuance of power conferred upon him by Section 14 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as may be necessary, prescribing disqualifications for a permanent salaried employee of the Society to be selected or nominated on the Managing Committee as also providing for ceases in which a member of the Managing Committee selected or nominated under the said Section 73BB vacates his office. (Maha. Co-op. Societies Act (24 of 1961), S. 73BB). 
A.I.R. 1983 Bombay 317
Person incurring disqualification-Government has no power to grant exemption. (Andh. Pradesh Co-op. Societies Rules, 1964, Rule 24-A).
(1979) 2 Andh. W.R. 157
Rule disqualifies member of Co-operative Bank who has taken loan from Bank and is in default-Disqualification does not attack to surety for principal debtor. (Mysore Co-op. Societies Rules, 1960, Rule 16 (1) (a)).
1968 Mys. L.J. (Supp.) 501
The consequence of superseding the committee is that the existing members of the committee are disqualified to seek election for a period of one year and that virtually disqualifies them for four years because if during the period of their disqualification fresh committee is selected that committee will have a term of three years. So the contention of the petitioner that the real idea of the show cause notice and the issue of the order for supersession was not a concern  for the proper working of the Bank but to disqualify the members from seeking re-election for the new Committee, has great force. (Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (21 of 1969), Section 32).
A.I.R. 1982 Kerala 12 = 1982 (18) Coop. L.J. 9
While the cessation of membership of the committee is automatic, if a member becomes disqualified, when a dispute is raised as to whether a person has incurred the alleged disqualification or not, that allegation has to be enquired into after notice by the competent authority and a finding arrived at as to whether a particular member has become disqualified or not. Once a finding is reached and a decision is given by the competent authority that a member ha incurred the disqualification, no further action on the part of any authority is necessary in order that the cessation of membership may operate. (A.P. Co-op. Societies Act (7 of 1964), Sections 21A, 61 and 62).
A.I.R. 1983 Andh. Pradesh 83 = 1983 (19) Coop. L.J. 148
A member of the committee does not cease to be a member merely because an allegation under Section 21-A is made against him by another member of the Society or of the committee. That allegation has to be enquired into in accordance with Rule 24(3). Only upon a decision given by the Registrar or the competent authority under Section 61 or under Rule 24 (3) such a member becomes disqualified but such a disqualification operates as a cessation of his membership with effect from the date of the incurring of the disqualification (A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (7 of 1964), Sections 21 A, 61 and 62).
A.I.R. 1983 Andhra Pradesh 83 = 1983 (19) Co-op. L.J. 148
Disqualification of member-Enquiry regarding-To be done by Registrar, Assistant Registrar not competent & to conduct enquiry-Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (25 of 1961) Section 27. (Rule 26, Punjab Co-operative societies Rules, 1963).
1976 P.L.J. 95
Bye-Laws of Haryana State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh-By Laws  33 and 31 (ii)-Director-Removal of-Non-incurring of disqualifications envisaged in Bye-law 33 lacking of qualification as envisaged in clause (ii) of Bye-law 31-Held that the person is not entitled to continue as a Director. (Rule 26, Punjab Co-operative Societies Rule, 1963).
1977 P.L.J. 426
The intendment of Section 21A is that a person who has incurred the disqualification referred to therein, would neither be eligible for being chosen as a member of the Committee nor to continue as a member of the Committee to be so disqualified. It cannot be said that the Committee would come into existence only after the election of its office-bearers and after the Committee is entrusted with the management. Once a member of the Society is chosen to be a member of the committee, it is these members to whom the management of the affairs of the Society is entrusted under Section 31 (1) (a) of the Act. (A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (7 of 1964) Sections 2(b), 31 (1) (a) and 21A).
A.I.R. 1983 Andhra Pradesh 83 = 1983 (19) Co-op. L.J. 148
There is difference between the nomination of a member under proviso 2 to Section 28(1) and under Section 31. The former can be made if only the bye-laws so provide and for a limited period, again as provided in the bye-laws. The members so nominated are as full-fledged as the members elected under sub-section (1) or appointed under proviso 1 to Section 28 (1) unlike the members nominated by virtue of the statutory power under Section 31(1). The rights of the latter are also curtailed at least in one respect. (sub-section 3). The Government has been given the power to make nominations under Section 31(1) where it has an interest in the Society and obviously to safeguard that interest. All this might account for the provision in Rule 44(1) limiting the prescribed disqualifications to members either elected or nominated under Section 28. The different modes of nominations under Section 28(1) and Section 31(1) have also been noticed in Rule 44 as is obvious from the proviso to clause (b) of sub-rule (2). The respondents are, therefore, right in their contention on the terms of the provisions of Sections 28 and 31 and rule 44, on which the question falls to be decided, however, much one might desire the same disqualifications uniformly to apply to all members, whether nominated or elected under Section 28 and nominated under Section 31. The result is respondent 2 did not suffer from the alleged disqualification and his nomination is not liable to invalidation. (Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (21 of 1969) Sections 28 and 31 and Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, Rule 44 (1)).
A.I.R. 1982 Kerala 84 = 1982 (18) Co-op. L.J. 45 = 1981 Ker. L.T. 335

Delegate
A delegate elected as a member of the Managing Committee of the Bank will have no right to continue as such a member if he ceases to be a delegate under Rule 87 read with Rule 86. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936, Rules 453 (k), 86, 87, 454).
A.I.R. 1973 llahabad 348 = (1973) 9 Co-op. L.J. 173 = I.L.R. (1973) 1 Allahabad 141
In delegating the legislative power, the Legislature cannot delegate any essential legislative function which consists of the determination of legislative policy and its formulation as a binding rule of conduct and that delegation of legislative power is permissible only when the legislative policy and principles are adequately laid down and the delegate is only empowered to carry out the subsidiary policy within the guidelines laid down by the Legislature. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), Section 73 BB).
A.I.R. 1983 Bombay 317
Details of delegates representing member societies need not be indicated in list of member. (Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, Rule 35(3)(b).
I.L.R. (1976) 1 Kerala 95 = 1976 Kerala L.T. 40
When the bye-laws of a society contemplated the member societies representing certain constituencies shall be the members as such  of its managing committee, a delegate representing a society in the committee of another society is not himself a member in his individual capacity but is only a representative of the society which is really the member of the committee. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 95(2)).
1969 M.P.W.R. 654 = 1969 Jab. L.J. 1016
Officer-Delegates elected under Section 49(b) could not be called, (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 2(u)).
1971 Lab. L.J. 650
The power to make subordinate legislation is derived from the enabling Act and it is fundamental that the delegate on whom such a power is conferred has to act within the limits of the authority conferred by the Act. The delegate cannot override the Act either by exceeding the authority or by making the provision inconsistent with the Act. (Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1963, Section 12(6) and Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965), Rule 14-A (3).
A.I.R. 1981 Orissa 112 = 1981 (51) Cut.L.T. 421
It is only Registrar in State that can exercise powers to initiate action under Section 70 or 78 of State Act as delegate of Central Registrar. (Multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1942), Section 4(2)).
(1974-75) 1-Co-op.L.J. 49 (Rajasthan)
Delegate system for election of Managing Committee-Not illegal. (Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1979 All India Land Laws Reporter 137

Delegation of Power
Delegation of power in Section 121-Not beyond permissible limit. (Mysore Co-operative Societies Act (52 of 1948), Section 121).
A.I.R. 1967 Mysore 203
If the state Government had intended to delegate the powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to hear appeals to the District Panchayat from the orders of the District Registrar or Assistant District Registrar as provided in Section 153(1)(b), the notification would have certainly included that power with reference to the relevant section of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. (Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (10 of 1962), Section 9, 153 and 156).
A.I.R. 1982 Guj. 154 = 1982 Guj. L.H. 37 = 1982 (1) Guj. L.R. 657
It is the Registrar who has to appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of a society. There is no other provision conferring powers with the Registrar or the Joint Registrar to delegate the function of nominating persons to look after the affairs of a society, and therefore, it is clear that he has no authority to delegate his own power to anyone else. (M.P. Co-operative Societies Act (17 of 1961), Section 53(1)).
A.I.R. 1984 Madhya Pradesh 40 = 1983 MP.L.J. 762 = 1984 Jab. L.J. 71
Delegate of primary society can challenge elections. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, Rule 83(2)).
1978 All. L.R. 41
Without delegation of power, Assistant Registrar could not act as Registrar. (Co-operative Societies Act (Central Act (2 of 1912), Section 3).
1970 All. L. J. 910
Delegation of powers of Registrar to Officers of different ranks-Help that such delegation is not illegal. (Sec. 3 Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1973 PLJ 636
Delegate of Registrar passing order in appeal-Revision lies to State Government. (Sec. 69, Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1973 PLJ 462
Power of Registrar-Delegation must be expressed. (Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, Section 66(4).
A.I.R. 1968 Patna 211
Preamble and the provisions of the Act sufficiently indicate the policy, principles and standards for the guidance of the delegate. The State Government must be guided by them while exercising the delegated power. (M.P. Co-op. Societies Act, 1961, Section 91 and 53 (3), Proviso).
A.I.R. 1974 Madhya Pradesh 59 = 1974 Co-op. L.R. 87 = (1974) 10 Co-op. L.J. 93 = 1974 M.P.L.J. 1 = Jab. L.J. 16
Delegation of power as to Assistant Registrar must be by express order. (Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959, Rule 39).
A.I.R. 1966 Patna 211
The provisions contained Rule 41(26) are mandatory and had to be strictly complied with. The Registrar could not have delegated his powers under Rule 41(260 to the Collector, nominee, to appoint the Returning Officers in the absence of any the rule authorizing delegation of this power.
(M.P. Co-operative Societies Act (17 of 1961), Section 64 and M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, Rule 41(26).
A.I.R. 1985 Madhya Pradesh 187 = 1985 Jab. LJ 83

Delegated Legislation
Assuming that Section 73BB is an instance of delegated legislation, it does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power. The section laws down sufficient guidelines for the State Government to enable it to exercise its powers under the said section. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), Section 73BB).
A.I.R. 1983 Bombay 317
Section 73-B provides a legislative mandate. Rule 61 has a status of subsidiary legislation or delegated legislation. Bye-law of a Co-operative Society can at best have the status of an Article of Association of a company governed by the Companies Act, 1956 and the bye-laws of a Co-operative Society framed in pursuance of the provision of the relevant Act cannot be held to be law or to have the force of law. They are neither statutory in character nor they have statutory flavour so as to be raised to the status of law. No if there is any conflict between a statute and the subordinate legislation, the statute prevails over subordinate legislation and the bye-law if not in conformity with the statute in order to give effect to the statutory provision the Rule or bye-law has to be ignored. The statutory provision has precedence and must be complied with. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1971), Section 73-B, 73).
A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 192 = 1984 Mah. Co-op. LJ. 34 = 1984 Mah. LR 405
In delegating the legislative power the Legislature cannot delegate any essential legislative function which consists of the determination of legislative policy and its formulation as a binding rule of conduct and that delegation of legislative power is permissible only when the legislative policy and principles are adequately laid down and the delegate is only empowered to carry out the subsidiary policy within the guidelines laid down by the legislature. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), Section 73BB).
A.I.R. 1983 Bombay 317
When a rule framed by the Government under Section 85 has not been placed before the Legislature as required by section 85(3), it remains delegated legislation and has to meet the test of not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. (Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (25 of 1961), Section 85(3)-Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963, Rule 45).
A.I.R. 1984 Punjab and Haryana 264 = 1984 Rev. L.R. 159

Disputes Touching Business of Society
Claim by member against Society resisted-It raises dispute touching business of Society. (Mysore Co-operative Societies Act (52 of 1948), Section 70(1)(b).
(1967) 10 Law. Rep. 805 (Mysore)
Dispute regarding irregularity-Society is not required to exhaust its remedies against debtor and sureties before proceeding against members. (Karnataka co-op. Societies Act, 1959, Section 70).
I.L.R. (1979) 1 Kant. 639 = 1969 (1) Kant. L.J. 185
To say that a dispute regarding disciplinary action which may result in imposition of punishment of any kind, including the punishment of dismissal is excluded from the general language of sub-section (1) Section 48 and a similar action of much lesser gravity, imposing no punishment, casting no stigma, should be allowed to be covered by Section 48 will be manifestly absurd, palpably unjust, absurdly inconvenient and will lead to anomalous results. (Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, Section 48 (1).
A.I.R. 1975 Patna 208 = 1974 B. B.C .J 930 I. L. R. (1974) 53 Patna 812
Dispute falling under Section 69 can also be subject-Matter of dispute under Section 70. (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 70 (2) (e) and 69 (as amended by Act 19 of 1970). 
(1980) 2 Kant. L.J. 106
Dispute relating to election matters-Should be referred to Registrar for expeditious decision-Registrar should decide election matters expeditiously or direct office to whom entrusted to decide the same likewise. (Sec. 55, Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1981 All. India Land Laws Reporter 301
Interpretation of-Dispute between the management and its employee-Not covered by the Section. (Punjab Co-op. Societies, 1961).
1972 Cur. LJ 360 (D.B.)
Dispute regarding-Election  of Managing Committee-Service on President also-If sufficient. Held, that the service on the President of the Co-operative Society does not amount to service on all members according to the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules 1963 or the principles of natural justice (Rule 51, Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963).
(1974) Revenue Law Reporter 426
Ensuring possession of the flat by the member and eviction of the non-member cannot but be held to be a touching the business of the Society. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), Section 91).
A.I.R. 1982 Bombay 428 = 84 Bom LR 177
Dispute falling under Section 69 - Can be entertained by Registrar, Co-operative Societies. (Karnataka Co-op. Societies Act, 1959, Section 69 (as amended by Act 19 of 1976)).
(1980) 2 Kant. L.J. 106
Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as introduced by the amending Act, does not even remotely affect the provisions of Section 163(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, which is a complete bar in respect of the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue Court in respect of the matters enumerated therein and clause (b) of which refers to ‘any dispute required to be referred to the Registrar or the Co-operative Court, for decision’. Before Section 41 is attracted, it has first to be found that there is jurisdiction in the Civil Court to entertain the dispute, and if the dispute cannot be entertained by the Civil Court at all in view of the overriding provisions in Section 163(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, a further question as to whether the suit should be filed only in the Presidency Small Cause Court does not really arise. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that as a result of the amended provision in Section 41, the Co-operative Court is divested of its jurisdiction under Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act to deal with the dispute between the licensor and the licensee. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (24 of 1961), Sections 91 and 163(1)).
A.I.R. 1981 Bombay 339 = 1980 Mah. LJ 707
Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as introduced by the amending Act, does not even remotely affect the provisions of Section 163(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, which is a complete bar in respect of the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue Court in respect of the matters enumerated there in and clause (b) of which refers to ‘any dispute required to be referred to the Registrar or the Co-operative Court, for decision’. Before Section 41 is attracted, it has first to be found that there is jurisdiction in the Civil Court to entertain the dispute, and if the dispute cannot be entertained by the Civil Court at all in view of the overriding provisions in Section 163(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, a further question as to whether the suit should be filed only in the Presidency Small Cause Court does not really arise. There is therefore, no substance in the contention that as a result of the amended, provision in Section 41, the Co-operative Court is divested of its jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act to deal with the dispute between the licensor and the licensee. (Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act, 1960 (24 of 1961), Section 91and 163 (1)).
A.I.R. 1981 Bombay 339 = 1980 Mah. LJ 707
Where dispute between a Society and its officer, the Civil Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (U.P. Co-op. Societies Rules, 1936, Rules 115, 134).
A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 152 = 1980 All LJ 1073 = 1981 (1) SCR 558
In order to attract Rule 115 it must be show (a) that the dispute is that one touching the business of the Co-operative Society; and (b) that it is between the Society and any officer of the Society. Both the conditions have to be cumulatively fulfilled before Rule 115 is attracted which result it ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect of dispute in view of the provision contained in Rule 134. (U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936, Rules 115, 134).
A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 152 = 1980 All LJ 1973 = 1981 (1) SCR 558
The first part requires the Registrar’s ‘satisfaction’ as to the dispute being covered by Section 91, by reference to the subject-matter and the parties involved. The second part requires him to decide if he would dispose of the dispute himself or refer it for disposal to the Co-operative Court. The decision on this point is always in favour of reference as he and his assistants can hardly get time even to read the plaint raising dispute for the first part of satisfaction. The section itself does not contemplate any notice to the non-disputants at this stage. The required  ‘satisfaction’ thus does not contemplate any trial of any issue as such, the disposal of the entire dispute with all its requirements and trappings being reserved for the subsequent stage. The stage of ‘satisfaction’, on the face of it is preliminary and contemplated ‘satisfaction’ is of a prima facie nature. Several enactment contemplate such stages of prima facie ‘satisfaction’ before the adjudicative machinery is set into motion. The next stage being of the decision either to try the dispute himself or refer the same for trial to the Co-operative Court, every aspect of the dispute remains untried at the stage of satisfaction including the truth of the averments made, which ultimately go to determine the jurisdiction. Requirement under Rule 76 of recording decision and reasons for aimed merely at ensuring the application of mind by the Registrar and elimination of casual approach. Ordinarily, trial of the ‘dispute’ should included trial of every aspect thereof including the issue of jurisdiction. This indeed is the rule, splitting of one case into two stages and trial thereof by two different persons being an exception. The section does not contain clearer words to that effect and it cannot be a matter of ready inference. (Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act (24 of 1961), Sections 93 (1), 152 (4)).
A.I.R. 1982 Bombay 428
Dispute between apex Central Society and member of Primary Society-If Can be referred to arbitrator-Provision of section 55 not clear-Question not decided-Matter compromised. (Sec. 55, Punjab Co-op. Societies Act, 1961).
1980 All India Land Laws Reporter 136
Dispute between surety for the loan and bank is covered by Section 61(1)(d). (Andhra Pradesh Co-op. Societies Act, 1964, Section 61).
1974 Co-op. L.J. 123 (Andhra Pradesh)
Dispute regarding service conditions cannot be said to be one touching business of the Society. (Kant. Co-op. Societies Act, 1969, Section 70 (1)).
(1976) 1 Lab. L.N. 387 = 1976 Lab. I.C. 988 = (1976) 1 Kant. L.J. 102
Dispute between creditor and Society-Reference for arbitration award-Effect of non filling of appeal against the award-Objection against award cannot be filed in the Civil Court.
1973 Rev. LR 367 (D.B.)
A claim by the nomine of an insured person against a Co-operative insurance Society for payment of what is due under  a policy is a dispute touching the business of his Society. (Madras Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1932), Section 51 (1) (b)).
A.I.R. 1955 Mad. 694 = I.L.R. (1956) Mah. 547 = 68 Mad. L.W. 641 = 1956 Mad. W.N. 306 = (1955) 2 Mad. L.J. 363
Suit for recovery of money from members of Co-operative Society-It is dispute touching the affairs of Society’. (Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (53 of 1961), Section 89).
1980 T.N.L.J. 173 = (1980) 93 Mad. L.W. 665
Even though proceedings have been initiated under Rule 24(3) the Registrar would not be precluded from hearing the dispute under Section 61. (Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 61 and Rule 24(3))
I.L.R. (1974) Andhra Pradesh 842 = (1974) 10 Co-operative L.J. 63 = 1974 Co-op. L.R. 358
Dispute regarding termination-Arbitration-Service of an employee of the Co-operative Society terminated-Such dispute between employee and Co-operative Society not covered by the Section-Dispute not amendable to  arbitration. (Sec. 55, Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1980 (3) SLR 381
Before reference can be made there must be dispute under Section 48 (1). (Hyderabad Co-operative Societies Act (16 of 1952), Sections 49 (1)(b) and 48 (1)).
(1966) 7 Law. Rep. 377 = (1966) 2 Mys. L.J. 120
Scope-Co-op. Societies Act, 1912, Section 43(2)(1)-Distinction-Scope of Clause (2) of Section 43 of Central Act does not provide for decision of a dispute between a member and Society. (Madras Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1932), Section 51).
A.I.R. 1954 Madras 103
Dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by Society against paid servant-Does not fall under Section 68. (Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (2 of (1963) Section 68).
I.L.R. (1974) Cut. 204
No dispute can be raised against by Ex.-Secretary. (Hyderabad Co-operative Societies Act (16 of 1952), Section 48(1) (before amendment in 1955).
(1966) 2 Mys. L.J. 120 = (1967) 7 Law Rep. 377
A dispute between a landlord and his tenant for the recovery of rent or of possession is within the scope of Section 91(1) (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), Section 9 (1).
I.L.R. (1969) Bombay 632 = (1968) 70 Bom. L.R. 607 = 1968 Mad. L.J. 837
Sub-Section (1) of Section 91 in effect provides that the disputes mentioned therein shall be tried by the Registrar. The non-obstante clause excludes the operation of other laws, which confer jurisdiction on some other Court, authority or Tribunal. If there is any other law which lays down that a matter, which under Section 91 the Registrar has jurisdiction to decided, may be tried by some other Court, authority or Tribunal then the application of that law is excluded by the non obstante clause. But this clause does not alter or modify the substantive rights of the parties does if confer any additional powers on the Registrar. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 24 of 1961), Section 91).
A.I.R. 1966 Bombay 187 = I.L.R. (1966) Bombay 616 = 39 F.L.J. 56 = 1966 Mah. L.J. 1
The word ‘dispute’ has been used in the Act in two senses. In one sense, it covers a dispute which the Registrar has determined as a dispute, In another sense, it is a dispute which is in the initial stage of being referred to the Registrar. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), Sections 91(1)(2) and 95(1), (4)).
A.I.R. 1967 Bombay 421 = 1967 Mah. L.J. 635 = 69 Bom. L.R. 389 = I.L.R. (1968) Bombay 166
The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was passed, in the main, to shorten litigation, lesson its costs and to provide a summary procedure for the determination of the dispute relating to the internal management of the Societies. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), Section 91.
A.I.R. 1969 Supreme Court 1320 = (1969) 5 Co-op. L.J. 135 = 1970 Mah. L.J. 301 = 72 Bom. L.R. 418
Registrar can entertain disputes regarding rejection of nomination before the election is held. (Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (10 of 1961), Section 96).
A.I.R. 1976 Gujarat 105 = 16 Guj. L.R. 1058
Act ‘touching’ the constitution, management, or the business of the Society’-Act must include inter alia the trade of buying, selling, hiring and letting in accordance with the co-operative principles-Non-payment of rent which is an omission cannot be said to be an ‘act’ within the meaning of the said expression.-Suit against Society for recovery of possession of premises on grounds of non-payment of rent and sub-letting is not bad for want of notice under Section 125. (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 25).
I.L.R. (1973) Kant. 1098
Dispute touching the management of the Society -Dispute by discharged employee-Claiming reinstatement with back wages is not such dispute. (Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (10 of 1962), D.F. Section 96(1)).
A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 1203 = (1979) 2 S.C.J. 365 = 1979 Lab. L.C. 592 = (1979) 2 S.C.R. 1023
If sub-section (1) of Section 96 confers jurisdiction, upon the Registrar, to entertain a dispute touching the constitution of a Society, it necessarily confers upon him the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute relating to the rejection of a nomination paper even before the election is held. (Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (19 of 1962), Section 96).
(1975) 16 Gujarat L.R. 1058
Section 97, 97, 98, 99(1), 100, 101 and 102 and Section 99(2) in so far as they relates to disputes with members, officers and servants of the Society are not violative of Article 19(1)(f) of Constitution. (Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (10 of 1962), Section 96 to 102).
I.L.R. 1971 Guj. 332 = (1971) 12 Guj. L.R. 355 = (1972) 8 Co-op. L.J. 38
Dispute with members, officers and servants of the Society interse -Denial of legal representation before the domestic forum is not unreasonable. (Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (10 of 1962), Section 99(2)).
I.L.R. 1971 Gujarat 332 = (1971) 12 Guj. L.R. 335 = (1972) 8 Co-op. L.J. 38
Return of security deposit is a dispute touching the business of the Society and, therefore, with the purviews of Section 73). (Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, (53 of 1961), Section 73).
(1973) 2 Mad. L.J. 284 = (1973) 86 Mad. L.W. 438
Dispute touching business of Society-Civil Court would have no jurisdiction-Dispute ought to be referred to Registrar of Co-operative Societies . (Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (2 of 1963), Section 68).
A.I.R. 1980 Orissa 115
Dispute touching business of Society-Allegation against Secretary of Bank that he abused his position and loss was caused-Proceedings under Section 68 held valid. (Orissa Co-op. Societies Act (2 of 1963), S. 68).
A.I.R. 1980 Orissa 115
Dispute touching business of Society-Allegation against Secretary of Bank that he abused his position and loss was caused-Proceedings under Section 68 held valid. (Orissa Co-op. Societies Act (2 of 1963), S. 68)
A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1895 = 1975 U.J. (S.C.) 611 = (1975) 2 S.C.C. 445
-When an allotment by the Society was questioned and the matter was decided by arbitration, the dispute related to the business of the Society. (Mysore Co-operative Societies Act (52 of 1948), Section 70).
(1969) 1 Mys. L.J. 196 = (1969) 17 Law. Rep. 650 = (1969) 5 Co-operative L.J. 231
Dispute whether was one contemplated by Section 68-Supreme Court refused to go into the merits of the matter. (Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (2 of 1963) Section 68 (4)).
A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1895 = 1975 U.J. (S.C.) 611 = (1975) 2 S.C.C. 445
Act ‘touching the constitution, management or the business of the Society, Act must include inter alia the trade of buying, selling, hiring and letting in accordance with the co-operative principles-Non-payment of rent which is an omission cannot be said to be an ‘act’ within the meaning of the said expression-Suit against Society for recovery of possession premises on grounds of non-payment of rent and sub-letting is not bad for want of notice under Section 125. (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 25).
I.L.R. (1973) Kant. 1098
Suit for recovery of rent is not a suit touching the Management or business of the Society within Section 125. (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 125).
I.L.R. (1973) Mysore 235.
Dispute by purchaser Society against its ex-secretary for not accounting sale of bags is maintainable. (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 70),
(1975) 2 Kant. L.J. 118
Whether to make the dispute touching the business of the Society as cognizable under Section 91, the Society should be the disputant or a co-disputant with the member raising such a dispute In the absence of any specific plea in the written statement the plea that the Society was an idle party and was not interested in dispute could not be raised for first time in writ proceeding as it required investigation into facts. Rejection of application of the license of nominal membership should that Society was keen in having its own members in occupation of the flat. Mere fact that the Society did not serve notice on the licensee or relevant papers were not produced in evidence or that Society was not a party to the leave and license agreement did not mean that the Society was not an interested party in the dispute. The Society, being an effective and interested party co-disputant case, the dispute must be deemed to be touching the business of the Society within the meaning of Section 91. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 91).
A.I.R. 1981 Bombay 244 = 1981 Mah. L.J. 777 = 83 Bom. L.R. 209
A dispute between a Society and its past employee about his dismissal is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the society’. (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 70).
A.I.R. 1973 Mys. 68 = (1972) 2 Mys. L.J. 327 = (1972) 1 Lab. L.N. 638
A dispute between a Society and its past employee about his dismissal is not a dispute ‘touching the constitution, management or business of the Society’. (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959, Section 70).
A.I.R. 1973 Mys. 68 = (1972) 2 Mys. L.J. 327 = (1972) 1 Lab. L.N. 638
Dispute regarding service conditions cannot be said to be one touching business of the Society. (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 70 (1)).
(1976) 1 Lab. L.N. 387 = 1976 Lab. I.C. 988 = (1976) 1 Kant. L.J. 102
Dispute referred to Arbitrator-Application for impleading as necessary party rejected by Tribunal in revision-Rejection held need not be interfered. (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1956, Section 70 and 107 (as amended by Act 19 of 1976).
(1980) 2 Kant. L.J. 106
Dispute between the Co-operative Bank and its employees is not a dispute touching the business of the Society. (Bengal Co-operative Societies Act (2 of 1940), Section 86).
(1972) 1 Lab. L.N. 328 = (1972) 76 Cal. W.N. 562 = 42 F.J.R. 120
Dispute between the members of the Society and the Managing Committee regarding validity of election of President falls within business of Society. (Bengal Co-op. Societies Act (21 of 1940), Sections 86 and 2 (j)).
(1973) 77 Cal. W.N. 455 = 1974 Co-op. L.R. 7
Dispute between the members of the Society and the Managing Committee regarding validity of election of President falls within business of Society. (Bengal Co-operative Societies Act (21 of 1940), Section 86 and 2 (j)).
(1973) 77 Cal. W.N. 455 = 1974 Co-op. L.R. 7
The dispute was between a Society and a non-member in respect of a claim for commission for the supply of sugarcane and interest there on. Their Lordship held that the dispute was beyond the purview of Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1936, first, because the dispute was with a non-member and secondly, was not a kind which could be referred to the Registrar for adjudication. In the present case the dispute was one which fell within the ambit of Section 64 (1)(b) if he still was a member and in any event’ under Section 64 (1)(c) of the Act, if he had ceased to be a member of the Society. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by Section of the Society. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by Section 82 (1)(c). the jurisdiction of the Civil Court being barred, the Court was coram non-judice and its decree was, therefore, a nullity. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sections 82 (1)(c),  64 (1)(b) and 64 (1)(c)).
1970 M.P.L.J. (Notes) 50
Dispute between the Co-operative Bank and its employees is not a dispute touching the business of the Society. (Bengal Co-operative Societies Act (21 of 1940), Section 86).
(1977) 1 Lab. L.N. 328 = (1972) 76 Cal. W.N. 562 = 42 F.J.R. 120
Dispute as to election is ‘business’ of the Society. (Bengal Co-op. Societies Act (21 of 1940), Section 2(i).
(1973) 77 Cal. W.N. 455
An act of Society having business of dealing in cloth refusing to vacate premises, taken on rent, even after determination of tenancy does not come within expression-Act touching business of Society. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 94).
(1977) 13 Co-op. L.J. (M.P.) 110
The question whether any such dispute is covered by Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act or Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act has to be determined by reference to averments in the plaint and not by reference to what the defendant says in his defense. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sections 91,98).
A.I.R. 1975 Bombay 187 = 76 Bom. L.R. 764 = 1975 Mah. L.J. 227 = 1974 Co-op. L.R. 393 = (1975) 11 Co-op. L.J. 12
Dispute between a member of Co-operative Housing Society and her licensee is not a dispute touching the business of Society. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 91).
1974 Co-op. L.R. 372 = 76 Bom. L.R. 719 = 1974 Mah. L.J. 908
A dispute between a Society and its Officer cannot be referred to the Registrar under Rule 16-Under Rule 26 it is necessary that one of the parties to the dispute must be a member, a past member or a person claiming through tem. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 43(2), Clause (1) & Rules under Rule 26).
A.I.R. 1961 Madhya Pradesh 40 = I.L.R. (1960) Madhya Pradesh 632 = 1960 Jab. L.J. 1100 = 1960 M.P.L.J. 1209
A dispute regarding election of ‘delegates’ is not a dispute falling within the ambit of Section 64(2)(v). (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 49 (b)).
1971 Jab. L.J. 650
No dispute about the membership of a person joining the application  for registration of the Society could be raised after the registration of the Society. (Co-operative Societies Act (Central Act 2 of 1912), Section 2(c), 43(2)(d), Bye-laws 4 and 5 of Jansevak Co-operative Housing Societ, Ltd. Kanpur).
1969 All. L.J. 652
Dispute between the Co-operative Bank and its employees is not a dispute touching the business of the Society. (Bengal Co-operative Societies Act (21 of 1940), Section 86).
(1977) 1 Lab. L.N. 328 = (1972) 76 Cal. W.N. 562 = 42 F.J.R. 120
Dispute as to election is ‘business’ of the Society. (Bengal Co-operative Societies Act (21 of 1940), Section 2(i).
(1973) 77Cal. W.N. 455
An act of Society having business of dealing in cloth, refusing to vacate premises, taken on rent, even after determination of tenancy does not come within expression-Act touching business of Society. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 94).
(1977) 13 Co-op. L.J. (M.P.) 110
The question whether any such dispute is covered by Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act or Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act has to be determined by reference to averments in the plaint and only by  reference to what the defendant says in his defense. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sections 91, 98).
A.I.R. 1975 Bombay 187 = 76 Bom. L.R. 764 = 1975 Mah. L.J. 227 = 1974 Co-op. L.R. 393 = (1975) 11 Co-op. L.J. 12
Dispute between a member of Co-operative Housing Society and her licensee is not a dispute touching the business of Society (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 91).
1974 Co-op. L.R. 372 = 76 Bom. L.R. 718 = 1974 Mah. L.J. 908
-A dispute between a Society and its Officer cannot be referred to the Registrar under Rule 16-Under Rule 26 it is necessary that one of the parties to the dispute must be a member, a past member or a person claiming through them. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 43(2), Clause (1) & Rules under Rule 26).
A.I.R. 1961 Madhya Pradesh 40 = I.L.R. (1960) Madhya Pradesh 632 = 1960 Jab. L.J. 1100 = 1960 M.P.L.J. 1209
A dispute regarding election of ‘delegate’ is not  a dispute falling within the ambit of Section 64 (2) (v)). (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 49 (b)).
1971 Jab. L.J. 650
No dispute about the membership of a person joining the application for registration of the Society could be raised after the registration of the Society. (Co-operative Societies Act (Central Act 2 of 1912). Sections 2(c), 43(2) (d), Bye-laws 4 and 5 of Jansevak Co-operative Housing Society, Ltd., Kanpur).
1969 All. L.J. 652
Dispute with employees-Registrar alone adjudicate. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1916 Section 93).
A.I.R. 1969 Madhya Pradesh 46 = 1969 Lab. I.C. 276
Under sub-section (3) of Section 50, when any question arises, whether for the purpose of this section a matter referred for decision is a dispute or not the question shall be decided by the Registrar whose decision shall be final, Wherein a dispute between a Co-operative Society and its lessors who were also the members of the Society, the Minister-in-Charge intimated to the lessors that the dispute arose out of a contract of lease and was not the sort of dispute which could be dealt with under Rule 18 and the Registrar when finally informed the lessors that the reply given by the Minister should stand. Held, that the decision of the Registrar was not under sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the Punjab Act. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 43). & Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (14 of 1955), S. 50).
A.I.R. 1957 Punjab 61
Default in repayment of loan by Society of Suit by Bank against Society maintainable-Dispute not touching the business of Society. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1961 Section 64, 82(c)).
1978 Jab. L.J. 340 = 1978 M.P.L.J. 271
Whether a reference to arbitration is valid, two things have to be decided-(a) whether there was a dispute and (b) whether the dispute touched the business of the Society. (U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 43) Rules under Rule 115).
A.I.R. 1957 Allahabad 771 = 1957 All. W.R. (H.C.) 659 = All. L.J. 641
Dispute there-Dispute relating to proceeds of sale is dispute touching its business. (Bengal Co-operative Societies Act (21 of 1940) S. 86).
A.I.R. 1955 N.U.C. (Calcutta) 4294
A dispute between Society and its ex-officer comes within the ambit of the section (Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, (21 of 1940), Section 86).
A.I.R. 1964 Calcutta 190
Dispute there-Dispute relating to proceeds of sale is dispute touching its business. (Bengal Co-op. Societies Act (21 of 1940), Section 86).
A.I.R. 1955 N.U.C. (Calcutta) 4294
When the Registrar was given the power to decide the dispute himself or at his direction to make a reference to arbitration, the power granted to him under Rule 116 to further decide whether there shall be one or two or three arbitration is also well within the scope of the Act and it cannot be said that the power is very arbitrary to validate the rule. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 43).
A.I.R. 1954 Allahabad 490 = 1954 All. W.R. (H.C.) 235 = 1954 All. L.J. 344
 

Sub -Section (1) of Section 43 is wide t enough to include, a dispute between two Societies and the rules made thereunder are, therefore, perfectly valid. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 43).
A.I.R. 1954 Allahabad 31 = 1953 All. L.J. 460
Applicant borrowing grain from Co-operative Society and agreeing to return it by certain date-Dispute held was one touching business of Society and Registrar’s refusal was against law. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 43(2)).
A.I.R. 1953 Allahabad 465 - (1953) All. W.R. (H.C.) 38 = I.L.R. (1953) 1 Allahabad 997
An Officer of the Society or the Society or its committee may committee an act giving rise to a dispute subsequently to the officer’s ceasing to be an officer-If the cause of action arose when the officer was an officer of the Society but the dispute and the reference of the dispute to arbitration was subsequent to his ceasing to be an officer of the Society, Rule 115 would be applicable. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 43-Rules under Rule 115 (iii)).
A.I.R. 1966 Allahabad 12 = 1965 All. W.R. (H.C.) 495 = 1965 All. L.J. 831
According to the definition of the word ‘dispute’ in Section 2 (i) of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940, the dispute should be capable of being the subject of civil litigation. Wages wage scales and dearness allowance do not appear to be fit or proper matters capable of being the subject of civil litigation. In that view, the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act excludes a dispute with regard to such matter capable of being the subject of civil litigation. In that view, the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act excludes a dispute with regard to such matters from being the subject of settlement by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. The claim of fixing wages and wages scales generally and dearness allowance cannot be described as a ‘claim in respect of any sum which is payable’ under Section 2 (j), (Bengal Co-operative Societies Act (21 of 1940), Sections 2 (j), 86 and 87).
A.I.R. 1958 Calcutta 373 = 62 Cal. W.N. 405 = (1958) 2 Lab. L.J. 61
Dispute as to election of an Officer-Registrar alone can decide it. (Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, Section 43).
A.I.R. 1967 Madhya Pradesh 147
Scope and interpretation-Dispute between a Co-operative Society and its workmen-Whether a dispute a contemplated  by Bengal Co-operative Societies Act. (Bengal Co-operative Societies Act (21 of 1940), Section 86 (2) (j) and 87).
A.I.R. 1958 Calcutta 373
A Co-operative Society ordering dismissal of its servant-Dispute is one that touches the business of the Society and also relates to its affairs and the same must be referred to the Registrar. (Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, (2) of 1940), Section 86 (before amendment of 1965).
(1968) 72 Cal. W.N. 669 = (1968) 2 Lab. L.J. 772 = 34 F.J.R. 426
Dispute as to election-Registrar can entertain. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 64).
A.I.R. 1976 Madhya Pradesh 156
It is well known proposition of law that when a matter falls under any specific provision, then it must be governed by that provision and not by the general provision. Section 48 of the Act, no doubt, speaks of disputes touching the business of a Society, but, at the same time, that dispute must arise under any of the conditions or circumstances mentioned in the various clauses of that section. The only clause, which speaks of a dispute touching the case of a servant of the Society is clause (b) of section 48 and that also says that the dispute relating the servant of the Societies must be between a member or his successor, on the one hand, and the servant, on the other hand. (Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, (6 of 1935), Sections 40 and 48).
A.I.R. 1985 Patna 46
Dispute between surety and principal debtor, who are members of a Co-operative Society must be referred to Registrar for arbitration  under Section 75, (Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act (13 of 1965), Sections137 (1) 9c) and 75).
A.I.R. 1984 N.O.C. 26 (Rajasthan)= 1983 Raj. L.R. 54
Dispute between Society and its employee regarding wages is not one touching the business of Society. (Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act (13 of 1965), Section 75).
1979 W.L.N. 639 (Rajasthan) = 1980 Lab. I.C. (N.O.C.) 25
Suit by a member of Co-operative Society challenging the election of office-bearers of the Society on ground of fraud, misappropriation-Dispute was one touching the business of the Co-operative Society. (Travancore Co-operative Societies Act (10 of 1952), Section 60).
1968 Kerala L.T. 260 = 1968 Kerala L.R. 108
Expression ‘Touching business’ does not include dispute regarding dearness allowance. (Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1965), Section 73).
(1973-74) Co-op.L.J. 117 (Madras)
Registrar has jurisdiction to decide dispute relating to title or right over immovable property if such dispute touches business of the Society (Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, Section 63).
A.I.R. 1970 Manipur 86
Dispute touching the business of a registered Society-Covers a dispute relating to the affairs of the Society. (Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, Section 48(1).
I.L.R. (1971) 50 Patna 501
Matters relating to condition of service of an employee of Society-Cannot be raised before an arbitrator as they have no bearing on the Constitution, Business or Management of Society. (Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sections 55 and 56).
1985 (1) All India Land Laws Reporter 152
An ‘industrial and labour dispute’ is one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List and as the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, received the assent of the President Section 55(2) of the Act must prevail in the State over the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in regard to disputes between a Co-operative Society and its employees regarding terms  of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action. This is clear from Article 254 (2) of the Constitution. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sections 55 (2), 93),
A.I.R. 1969 M.P. 46 = 1968 M.P.W.R. 715 = 1968 Jab. L.J. 1068 = 1968 M.P.L.J. 837 = 1969 Lab. I.C. 276
Election disputes-Whether dispute touching the business of a registered Society. (Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959, Rule 68 (13)).
I.L.R. 41 Patna 325
Dispute regarding regularity of appointment-Not a dispute between a member and the Society. (Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, Section 48(1)(a) and (b)).
I.LR. (1971) 50 Patna 501
Ouster of Civil Court’s jurisdiction-Dispute ought to touch constitution, management or business of Society. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 32 (1) (c)).
1979 M.P.L.J. 203
Board of Revenue under Section 77(2) has power to make directions regarding matters falling within ambit of a dispute regarding terms of employment. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sections 55 (2), 77 (2)).
1969 Jab. L.J. 868 = 1969 M.P.W.R. 807 = 1969 M.P.L.J. 879
A dispute regarding election of ‘delegates’ under Section 49(b) is not a dispute falling within the ambit of Section 64(2) (v). (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sections 64(2) (v), 49 (b), 2(u)).
1971 Jab. L.J. 650
The question of expulsion of a member from the Society is a dispute touching the management of business of the Society, (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sections 64(1), 77).
A.I.R. 1977 Madhya Pradesh 217 = (1977) 13 Co-op. L.J. 115 = 1977 M.P.L.J. 831
Dismissal of an employee-Employee can raise an industrial dispute. (Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act (4 of 1953), Section 61).
A.I.R. 1968 Rajasthan 33 = (1967) 1 Lab. L.J. 270 = 1967 Raj. L.W. 73
Dispute regarding membership of a Co-operative Society touches the business of a registered Society. (Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, Section 46).
(1972) 8 Co-op. L.J. 271 = 1971 B.L.J.R. 393
Dispute between Society and a non-member, which is not covered by any of categories (a) to (e) of Section 48(1) cannot be within purview of Section by reason of the Explanation. (Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935; Section 57 (as amended by Bihar Act 16 of 1948).
A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 389
A dispute to which the Registrar himself is one of the parties cannot be treated as one failing within the ambit of Section 64. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 64).
A.I.R. 1974 Madhya Pradesh 164 = 1974 Co-op. L.R. 236 = 1974 Jab. L.J. 416 = 1974 M.P.L.J. 447
Allotment of building site to member by building Society-Allottee having failed to pay the installments and in view of his persistent refusal to comply with the terms of the agreement the Society referred the dispute to the Registrar under Section 54 of the Act for decision by himself or his nominee. The allottee contended that the dispute between the Society and himself was essentially a dispute between landlord and tenant and hence the award made by the arbitrators appointed by the Registrar was without jurisdiction. Award was perfectly valid award and there was absolutely no justification for the plea taken by the allottee that he was a tenant who was governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. (Bombay Act LVII of 1947). (Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, Sections 54).
A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court. 369 = 1964 Mah. L.J. 410 = (1964) (3) S.C.R. 96 = 66 Bom. L.R. 205
Conditions necessary for applicability-There must be dispute touching business of Society between Society and member and latter must be interested in the dispute as member. (Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, Section 54).
A.I.R. 1952 Bombay 445 = (52) 54 Bom. L.R. 517
Dispute as to appointment of an employee-Registrar has power to decide whether such a dispute fails within Section 2(1). (Kerala Co-operative Societies act, 1969, Sections 2 (1), 69).
(1974) 2 Lab. L.J. 526 = 1974 Ker. L.T. 196 = 1974 Ker. L.J. 90
Dispute between sureties whether is dispute touching business of Society. (Travancore Co-operative Societies Act (5 of 1112-ME), Section 62).
I.L.R. (1957) Kerala 313
Disputant can withdraw application under Section 54. (Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, Section 59).
(1962) 3 Guj. L.R. 770
Treasurer misappropriating money-It is matter touching business of Society and can be referred to arbitration. (Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, Section 54 (as applicable to Delhi).
I.L.R. (1965) 2 Punjab 61 = 67 Punj. L.R. 566
Premises taken on hire-Society released one room of the premises and intimated the landlord but the landlord was alleged to have wrongly adjusted the rent towards the rent of the room. The dispute that arose could not fall under section 69. (Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 Sec. 69).
I.L.R. (1978) 2 Kerala 143
The Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain a matter in dispute between the Society and a past officer of the Society to arbitration under Section 48(1)(c) of the Hyderabad Co-operative Societies Act (16 of 1952), (Hyderabad Co-operative Societies Act (16 of 1952), Sections 48, 56, 57 (1) (as amended).
(1958) 2 Andh. W.R. 362
Section 42-A of Hyderabad Co-operative Credit Societies Act, 1923 F and its clauses imply clearly that a past officer is not included among the persons whose dispute with the Society could be taken cognizance by the arbitrator. (Hyderabad Co-operative Societies Act (16 of 1952), Section 48).
A.I.R. 1956 Hyderabad 129 = I.LR. (1956) Hyderabad 368
A long as the parties to a dispute are those specified in Section 60 and the dispute itself is one ‘touching the business’ of the Society. (Travancore-Cochin Co-operative Society Act (10 of 1952), Sec. 60(1), Explanation).
A.I.R. 1957 Trav. Co. 274 = I.L.R. (1956) Trav. Co. 1205
The opening words or Rule 35 speak of a dispute ‘referred to the Registrar’ but the concluding part of Rule 35 call it a decision by the Registrar. There is then no further reference and thus no right in the parties to have the dispute decided by three arbitrators. The last para of Rule 35 speaks of a ‘dispute referred to the Registrar’s nominee or to three arbitrators’ and the last words of Rule 35 though say ‘refer again to his nominee for decision’, cannot be construed as a second reference importing the right of the parties to have their own arbitrators joined by the rule-making authority on the reversion of the dispute in the decision of the dispute by the Registrar where the parties have to future right and in the decision by the nominee. The purpose to be achieved is that the proceedings are not delayed and are concluded by a decision either by the Registrar or his nominee. (Bombay Co-operative Societies Act (7 of 1925), (as extended to Union Territory of Delhi, Section 54 a (3) and Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1950, Rule 35).
A.I.R. 1982 Delhi 335 = 1982 (22) D.L.T. 87
Dispute only for recovery of advance rent paid to the landlord by the respondent-Bank-Maintainability of the dispute under the Section. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 91).
1984 C.T.J. 172
Matter ‘touching business of Society’-Contractor’s failure to complete construction within time-Dispute is capable of being resolved by Registrar. (Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, Section 69 (1) (f)).
1976 Ker. L.R. 137
Disputes arising between the past officers and the Society should be agitated in ordinary forums. (Hyderabad Co-operative Societies Act, (16 of 1952), Section 84 (1) (c) Prior to the amendment).
1961 Andh. L.T. 367 = (1961) 1 Andh. W.R. 422
Section 69 will be applicable only to ‘dispute’ and such a title suit does not come within either of the categories specified in the definition of ‘dispute in Section 2 (1)) (Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, S. 100).
1975 Ker. L.T. 363 = I.L.R. (1975) 1 Kerala 234
Dispute relating to constitution of Managing Committee of a cane growers Society-District Magistrate has jurisdiction. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1966, Section 71).
1971 All. L.J. 1339
The dispute touching  the housing of the Society must be between a Society and its member. It must relate to transaction in which the member is interested as a member. (Madras Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1932), Section 51).
I.L.R. (1964) 1 Kerala 1963 Kerala L.T. 950 = 1963 Ker. L.J. 806
Matter ‘touching business of Society’-Contractor’s failure to complete construction within time-Dispute is capable of being resolved by Registrar. (Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, Section 69 (1) (f)).
1976 Kerala L.R. 137
Suit by past member to recover a debt from a Society is a dispute touching the business of the Society. (Madras Co-operative Societies Act 6 of 1932), Section 73 (1) (b)).
1966 Mad. W.N. 51 = (1966) 1 M.L.J. 180
Dispute between employee of Society and Society-Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1966), Section 70 and 111).
(1975) All. L.R. 113
Dispute relating to  dismissal of workman is not a ‘dispute’ within Section 2(1). (Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, Sec. 2(1)).
1973 Ker. L.T. 523
In order to attract Section 51, it is sufficient if there is a dispute touching the business of the Society; it is not necessary that the dispute should arise directly  out of the business of Society. (Madras Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1932), Section 51).
I.L.R. (1960) 2 Andhra Pradesh 298 = (1960) 1Andh. W.R. 57 = 1960 Andh
Rejection of nomination paper is dispute touching the constitution  of the Committee. (Madras Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1932), S. 73).
A.I.R. 1967 Madras 192 = (1966) 2 M.L.J. 415 = 79 Mad. L.W. 713
Power of Registrar to entertain revision does not extend to dispute relating to rejection of nomination before date of declaration of results. (Madras Co-operative Societies Act (53 of 1961), Section 97).
A.I.R. 1967 Mad.  182 = (1966) 2 M.L.J. 415 = 79 Mad. L. 713
Delegate member representing a primary Society can raise a dispute about the validity of the election of the members of the Committee of Management. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1966), Sections 20 and 70) & U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, Rule 83 (2)).
(1978) 4 All. L.R. 22 = 1978 All. L.J. 41
A dispute relating to removal or expulsion of a member of the Committee of Management would be a dispute relating to the constitution of the Committee of Management. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, Rules 229) (2) and 454).
1978 All. L.J. 430
Any or every type of dispute arising in connection with an election of any office bearers mentioned in Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act is wholly within the purview of Section 70 and has to be dealt with as provided for there-in, and a reference of an election dispute under Section 70, may rightly be made by any party to that dispute, and not necessarily or exclusively by the Society in connection with whose affairs the election question had been held or is proposed to be held. (Mysore Co-operative Societies Act (52 of 1948), Section 70).
(1963) 1 Mys. L.J. 204
Where there is a dispute touching the election or re-constitution of the committee pending adjudication under Section 70, the Magistrate should not act till the disposal of the said dispute. (Mysore Co-operative Societies Act (52 of 1948), Section 31(2)).
(1970) 2 Mys. L.J. 104
The words ‘touching the business of a Society’ in Section 126 must be give their full import bearing in mind the object of the legislation. The disputes of the Society, but are also to be extended to matters which are in some way concerned or related to the business of the Society. The word business’ is not used in a narrow sense. In order to determine the business of the Society, one has to look into the provisions of the Act. the Rules and the Bye-laws framed by the Society. All matters comprised in them or incidental or are necessary for carrying out those matters must be deemed to be the business of the Society. (A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 126).
A.I.R. 1981 Andh. Pra. 180 = (1) Andh. L.T. 63 = 1981 (1) Andh. WR 235
Touching ‘Business’ of the Society-Connotation-Loan for building factory by a Society having no “trading of commercial activity-Held that it cannot be said to be an “act touching the business of the Society”. (Sec. 79 Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
ILR (1979) 1 Delhi 300. (DB)
The bonus, the claim of the employee for one month’s salary for not giving one month’s notice of retrenchment, and compensation for unavailed privilege leave are all undoubtedly matters touching the business of the Society. (Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 61).
(1969) 1 An. W.R. 409 = (1969) 5 Co-op. L.J. 157 = 18 Fac. L.R. 371
Claim by employee of Society for refund of security deposit is a matter touching the business of Society. (Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (53 of 1961), Section 73 (1)).
(1977) 2 Lab. L.J. 274 = 1977 Lab. I.C. 503 = 90 Mad. L.W. 8
‘Touching business’ includes a claim by registered Society for any debt or demand due to and from its members. (Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (53 of 1961), Sections 73 and 71).
(1973-74) Co-op. L.J. 128
The phrase ‘in pursuance of the business of the Society’ is the Section cannot only refer to the commercial activities of the Bank, but it also includes within its sweep the affairs, functions and activities of the Bank. (Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1952), Section 128). 
(1976) 2 Cut. W.R. 896 = 1977 Lab. I.C. 786 = 43 Cut. L.T. 119
Where the nomination of the candidate, for election to the Board of Directors of the Bank was rejected by the Deputy Registrar, and the only remaining candidate was notified to have been elected from the constituency, the order of rejection of nomination could validly be challenged by the aggrieved candidate in appeal before the Registrar since the order of rejection was touching the election in view of Section 109(1) (e-). (Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1963, (As amended by Act 21 of 1970). Section 109 (1) (e-); (j), 68).
A.I.R. 1981 Orissa 194 = 52 Cut. L.T. 319
Dispute relating to alteration of conditions of service cannot be held to be dispute touching ‘business’ of Society. (Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 61, 16).
A.I.R. 1970 Supreme Court 245 = (1970) 1 Mad. L.J. (S.C.) 68 = (1970) 1 Andh. W.R. (S.C.) 68 = 40 Company  Cases 206 = 1970 Lab. I.C. 285
The meaning to the expression ‘touching the business of the Society’, makes it very doubtful whether a dispute in respect of alteration of conditions of service can be held to be covered by this expression. Since the word ‘business’ is equated with the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the Society, and since it has been held that it would be difficult to subscribe to the proposition that whatever the Society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects, such as laying down the conditions of service of its employees, can be said to be a part of its business, it would appear that a dispute relating to conditions of service of the workmen employed by the Society cannot be held to be a dispute touching the business of the Society. (U.P. Co-operative Society Act, 1966, Section 70).
A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 120 = 1981 (4) S.C.C. 431 = 1982 All. L.J. 50
Medical Officer employed by the respondent Society who is concerned with the maintenance of health of the employees of the Society and a dispute concerning his purported wrongful dismissal and the monetary claim made by him on that footing must be held to be one touching the business of the Society and would, therefore, be within the purview of Section 91 of the Act. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), S. 91).
1978 U.C.R. (Bombay) 57
Order of punishment in disciplinary proceedings is not an order touching business of Society. (Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. 1935, Section 48).
A.I.R. 1973 Patna 74 = (1972) 8 Co-op. L.J. 99 = 1972 B.L.J.R.5
The word ‘dispute’ does not include within its ambit service conditions of the employees of a Society. (Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, Section 48 (1)).
A.I.R. 1974 Patna 77 = (1974-75) 10 Co-op. L.J. 38 = 1973 B.B. CL.J. 552 = 1974 Co-op. L.R. 164
The word ‘touching’ has a much wider connotation than the expression ‘directly related’ or ‘directly arising out of. If for the purpose of carrying on business certain subsidiary activities have to be undertaken, such activities do touch the business of the Society. If a reasonable or logical relationship between a matter in question and the business can be pointed out, it will not be wrong to describe the said matter as a matter touching the business. (Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, (52 of 1948), Section 70 (1)).
(1967) 2 Mys. L.J. 502 = 12 Law. Rep. 508 = (1968) 2 Lab. L.J. 313
A claim by the past officer of the Society for arrears of salary comes within the clause ‘touching the business of the Society’. (Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (53 of 1961), Section 73 (1)).
(1972) 2 Mad. L.J. 134 = (1972) 85 Mad. L.W. 511
Suit against Society for recovery of price of goods sold-Suit is not one in respect of an act touching the business, management of business’ of the Society. (Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, (2 of 1963), S. 127).
A.I.R. 1975 Orissa 135 = I.L.R. (1975) Cut. 386 = 41 Cut. L.T. 809
Where the Society is a tenant co-partnership type housing Society formed with the object of providing residential accommodation to its co-partner tenant members, it logically follows that whatever the Society does in the normal course of its activities such as by initiating proceedings for removing an act of trespass by a stranger, from a flat allotted to one of its members, cannot but be part of its business. It is as much the concern of the Society formed with the object of providing residential accommodation to its members. which normally is it business, to ensure that the flats are in occupation of its members, in accordance with the bye-laws framed by it, rather than of person in unauthorized occupation, as it is the concern of the member, who lets it out to another under an agreement of leave and license and wants to secure possession of the premises for his own use after the termination of the license. It must, therefore, follow that a claim by the Society together with such member for rejectment of a person who was permitted to occupy having become a nominal member thereof, upon revocation of license is a dispute falling with the purview of Section 91 (1) of the Act: (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, S. 91 (1)).
A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1097 = 1982 (2) S.C.C. 244 = 1982 Mah. L.J. 484

Damages
Award by arbitrator merely directing delivery of bricks with a direction that in a case of default for such delivery claimant is to go for a suit for damages-Arbitrator should have assessed the damages in the alternative (West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, (38 of 1973), Sections 87 and 132).
A.I.R. 1984 Calcutta 125 = 1984 (1) Cal. L.J. 141

Damduppat
Principle of Damduppat was evolved as an inducement debtor to pay the entire principal and interest thereon at one and the same time in order to save interest in excess of the principal. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 44 and 101).
1984 C.T.J. 252

Dual Membership
Bye-law authorizing dual membership is ultra vires. (Travancore Co-operative Societies Act (5 of 1112-ME), Section 90(4)).
A.I.R. 1955 N.U.C. (Trav-Co) 1182

Duty of Registrar
Subject matter of dispute falling under-Duty of the Registrar. (Sec. 55, Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1972 Cur. L.J. 748
In discharging his executive duty the Registrar of course must after due consideration, come to an honest decision as to whether to exercise the discretion it one way rather than the other for the purpose of carrying into effect, (Societies Act, 1964, Section 32(7)).
I.L.R. (1967) Andhra Pradesh 546

Determination of Dispute
The special provision incorporated in Section 91 of the Act is made by the Legislature to shorten litigation, lessoning its cost and to provide a summary procedure for the determination of the dispute relating to the internal management of the Society as well as the dispute touching its business. Any of the parties to the dispute can refer the dispute under this provision, if it is covered by section 91(10 of the Act. The parties contemplated by sub-section (a) of section 91(1) of the include Society, committee and past committee, past or present officer, past or present agent, past or present servant of nominee as well as their legal representatives. Practically, an effort is made by the legislature to bring in the import of this section all the parties which stand in fiduciary relationship qua the co-operative Society. An Officer, agent, servant or nominee of the Society have obviously a fiduciary relationship with the Society. To cover all possible disputes between such parties, the Legislature as used different words to make it all comprehensive. These words are used in a generic sense and, therefore the meaning of the word ‘agent’ will have to be understood in the context of the object of the provision as well as its scope. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, Section 91 which corresponds to the Section 68 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act).
A.I.R. 1982 Orissa 1 - 53 Cut. L.T. 150

Dissolution   
Under clause (a) of Section 26-A, the date of dissolution has been fixed to be the date following the day on which the said period of fifteen months expires. The Registrar shall appoint a Special Officer for managing the Society and for holding the election within a period not exceeding one year from the date of such dissolution. There may be cases where the said period of one year had expired before the enactment of section 26-A and in such cases, the section will not be applicable. (West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973, Section 26-A).
A.I.R. 1981 Calcutta 378
Order of dissolution of managing committee of Society not functioning properly, upheld. (Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act (4 of 1953), Section 51).
A.I.R. 1955 N.U.C. (Rajasthan) 5743

Dissolution
Dissolution of partnership cannot nullify arbitration clause contained in the Partnership-deed,.  (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936, Rule 116).
A.I.R. 1947 Allahabad 269

Disability
The disability that can be prescribed by  a rule framed under the section, to the continued membership has to be a prospective disability. (Delhi Co-operative Societies Act (35 of 1972), Section 97 (2)(v)- Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973, Rule 25(2)).
A.I.R. 1977 Delhi 236 = (1977) 13 Co-op. L.J. 136 = I.L.R. (1977) 2 Delhi 164

Discrimination
-The first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 results in hostile discrimination between the Societies similarly placed and circumstanced. It is also arbitratory and unreasonable and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), Section 27(3) First proviso (as amended by Act 18 of 1984).
A.I.R. 1985 Bombay 454 = 1985 (87) Bom. L.R. 29 = 1985 Mah. L.J. 95

District Judge
Contention raised before District Judge but not considered and decided by, him - Leave to raise new plea allowed. (Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1932), Section 49(2)).
1973 Ker. L.J. 129 = 1973 Ker. L.T. 209 = 1973 Ker. L.R. 106
District Judge has no jurisdiction in to entertain appeal against refusal of Registrar to make enquiry and order payment under Section 49(1) against employees. (Mysore Co-operative Societies Act (52 of 1948), Section 49 (2) and 7).
A.I.R. 1955 N.U.C. (Mysore) 1235

Distinction
Scope-Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 Section 43(2) (1)-District ion-Scope of Clause (2) of Section 43 of Central Act does not provide for decision of a dispute between a member and Society. (Madras Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1932) Section 51).
A.I.R. 1954 Madras 103

Different Remedies
Different remedies-Both the remedies could not be invoked one after other. (Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (53 of 1961), S. 71).
92 Mad. L.W. 123 = (1978) 1 Mad. L.J. 6

District Manager
District Magistrate can appoint any one of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under him to decide the reference. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, Rules 230(e)).
1978 All. L.J. 41 = 1971 All. L.R. 22
District Manager - Can function as a Chairman of the Society. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies act (11 of 1961), Section 34).
A.I.R. 1971 Allahabad 476 = 1971 All. L.J. 523

Dishonest Act
The words ‘any act or omission’ certainly comprehend not merely honest but also dishonest acts or omissions. (Madras Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1932), Section 51 (1) (c)).
A.I.R. 1957 Andhra Pradesh 98

Discharge of Function
For discharging the function of the executive, the Government has formed Rules of Executive Business in terms of Article 166 (3) of the Constitution. Rule 21 in Part III of the Rules of Executive Business lays down that cases shall ordinarily be disposed of by or under the authority of the Minister-in-charge who may by means of standing orders given such direction as he thinks fit for the disposal of cases in the Department. Rule 21 lays down that the Minister for the Department can dispose of certain matters. There-fore, it could not be said that the expression ‘State Government’ occurring in Section 65-A does not include the Minister for a particular Department. (Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, Section 65-A).
A.I.R. 1982 Patna 48 = 1981 BLJR 115

Disposal of Appeal
In the Assam Co-operative Societies Act no procedure is prescribed for disposal of appeals. (Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, Section 80(3) (as extended to Manipur).
1974 Assam L.R. 327
Registrar in appeal has powers to pass and kind of orders as he thinks fiction disposing of the appeal. (Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 Rule 133).
1969 Lab. I.C. 17 = 16 Fac. L.R. 264

Disposal of Disputes
Disposal of disputes-Registrar can deal with case in the manner prescribed in sub-Section without deciding that a dispute within Section 75 exists. (Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act (13 of 1965), Section 77(1)).
1980 Raj.L.W. 360 = (1970) 6 Co-operative L.J. 289

Displaced Person
Registered Co-operative Society in not a displaced person. (Co-operative societies Act, 1912, Section 2).
A.I.R. 1961 Rajasthan 233

Dispensing with Prescribed Procedure
It is permissible for the Registrar to dispense with the procedure prescribed by the first provision when the Registrar was satisfied that the action had to be taken very emergently. (Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 Section 33, Proviso 1 and 2).
A.I.R. 1972 Kerala 233 = 1971 Ker. L.J. 349 = 7 Co-operative L.J. 219

Dismissal
Dismissal of employee-Dispute regarding-Section 55 not attracted-Can be tried a Civil Court or an industrial Court. (Sec. 55, Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
I.L.R. (1973) 1 Punjab 453 (DB)
A dispute arising out of a disciplinary proceeding resulting in dismissal of an employee of the Society cannot be held to be a dispute touching the business of the Society. (U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936, Rules 115, 134).
A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 152 = 1980 All. L.J. 1073 = 1981 (1) SCR 558
Employee dismissed under order of office in charge -Board of Bank superseded - Order of dismissal by Officer in charge is nullity and can be ignored. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 55).
1979 Jab. L.J. 689 = 1979 M.P.L.J. 631 = 1979 (2) Serv. L.R. 464
A Co-operative Society ordering dismissal of its servant - Dispute is one that touches the business of the Society and also relates to its affairs and the same must be referred to the Registrar. (Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, (21 of 1940), Section 86 (before amendment of 1965).
(1968) 72 Cal. W.N. 669 = (1968) 2 Lab. L.J. 772 = 34 F.J.R. 426
Dispute regarding dismissal - No authorization to Deputy Registrar to decide such dispute-All the proceedings carried on by the Deputy Registrar would be non set. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 55).
1976 Co-operative L.J. 123 (Madhya Pradesh)
Haryana State Central Co-operative Banks Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules: - Dismissal power - Manager not competent to exercise - Order passed ultimately by the Board of Directors held to be a case where rules were violated. Matter to be placed in the first instance before the Board of Directors. (Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sections 80 and 84).
1984 (2) All India Land Laws Reporter 292

Dismissal of appeal as time barred without adverting to the Explanation given in grounds of appeal for filling appeal beyond period of limitation - Appeal should not have been dismissed on ground of limitation - C.W.P. No. 315 of 1678 Zile Singh v/s State of Haryana decided by Division Bench on 2nd. August, 1979 Distinguished - Order set aside. (Sec. 68, Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1983 (1) All India Land Laws Reporter 329

District Co-operative Bank
District Co-operative Bank is not subordinate to the Registrar Co-operative Societies. (Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 77).
(1980) 2 Andh. W.R. 431 = (1981) 1 Serv. L.R. 142

District Panchayat
District Panchayat exercises the powers of Registrar under Section 9 of the Co-operative Societies Act, particularly those powers which are exercisable by District Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the Assistant District Registrar, Co-operative Societies as conferred on them by the Registrar and, therefore, the appeal from orders in exercise o such powers would lie to the Registrar since they are in fact and substance the powers exercisable by the District Registrar or Assistant District Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. Secondly, the power of the Registrar to hear appeal under Section 153 has not been transferred to Jhila Panchayat. As a matter of fact item 3 of the Schedule to the said notification is pertaining to the transfer of powers of Registrar under Section 24 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (10 of 1962), Section 9, 153 and 156).
A.I.R. 1982 Gujarat 154 = 1982 Guj. LH 37 = 1982 (1) Guj. 2 R 657

Division of Area
The language of Section 15 of the Act does not support the contention that a division of the area necessarily amount to a division of the Society itself. (Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 6, 7 and 15).
(1967) 1 Andh. W.R. 244
The language of Section 15 does not warrant a finding that the registration of a new society for an area already served by an existing society amounts to a division of the area of operations of the existing Society, or that the procedure indicated in Section 15 should be followed before the registration of the new Society, or that it is a proceeding started by the Registrar for division of the existing Society. (Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 7, 15).
I.L.R. (1969) Andhra. Pradesh 902 = (1968) 1 Andh. W.R. 52

Divesting from Membership
If any rules are framed as to what is to be done by those who are members the same will no doubt be applicable both to the persons who applied after the coming into force of Rule 25 and those who were already members even earlier than the Rules. But all that it means is that Rules may provide for condition to be complied with by existing members but only in future. This rule is not to be read as giving any substantive power to divest any person his membership. It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed so as to have a retrospective operation, unless its language is such as plainly to require such a construction. And the same rule involves another and subordinate rule, to the effect that a statute is not to be construed so as to have a greater retrospective operation than its language renders necessary. (Delhi Co-operative Societies Act (35 of 1972), Section 97 (2) (v)).
A.I.R. 1982 Delhi 470

Disciplinary Proceedings
Order punishment in disciplinary proceedings-Appeal lies to the Board of Directors of the Society. (Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959, Rule 33).
A.I.R. 1973 Patna 74
A dispute arising out of a disciplinary proceeding resulting in dismissal of an employee of the Society cannot be held to be a dispute touching the business of the Society. (U.P. Co-op. Societies Rules, 1936 Rules 115, 134).
A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 152 = 1980 All. L.J. 1073 = 1981 (1) S.C.R. 558
Dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a Co-operative Bank-Reference of dispute to Industrial Tribunal proper. (Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (2 of 1963), Section 68).
1974 Lab. I.C. 291 (Orissa)
Scope of-Registrar invested with disciplinary control over Societies-while determining delinquency of a Committee or a member thereof under Section 27 Registrar acts in quasi-judicial capacity-Apart from suspending a Committee or a member with any civil liability-Disobedience to Directive issue by Registrar may from a valid basis for taking disciplinary action. (Sec. 27, Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961).
1972 P.L.J. 363

Discretion
Enquiry under Section 88 pending application for stay of the proceeding till the pendency of a criminal case rejected by the Authorized  Officer- Authorized Officer has rightly exercised the discretion. (Maharashtra Co-operative Act (24 of 1961), Section 88).
1980 Bom. C.R. 207
The words ‘if he thinks fit’ do not confer unguided and unfettered discretion on the Registrar. (Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (10 of 1962) Section 98 (3)).
I.L.R. 1971 Guj. 332 = (1971) 12 Guj. L.R. 355 = (1972) 8 Co-op. L.J. 38
Mere conferment of unfettered discretion under Section 73 in Registrar of Co-operative Societies will not offend Article 14. (Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1952), Sections 73 and 133).
A.I.R. 1958 Orissa 217
Implied policy and object behind Section 67 is to avoid delay in deciding disputes and the Registrar acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. He cannot act arbitrarily. Discretion conferred is judicial and not administrative. (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 67 (2)).
A.I.R. 1971 Madhya Pradesh 86 = 1971 M.P.L.J. 110 = (1972) Co-op. L.J. 198 = 1971 Jab. L.J. 13
Discretionary power of Registrar cannot be assailed in proceeding under Article 227 of Constitution of India. (Madhya Bharat Co-operative Societies act (9 of 1955), Section 75).
1964 M.P.L.J. (Notes) 219
Discretion-Curtailment of-Appointment of Administrator under Section 26 (1-D)-Held that the Registrar can curtail the discretion of administrator by issuing instructions under section 27(3).
1973 P.L.J. 636
Extension of term-Matter purely rests with discretion of Registrar. (Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 32 (7)).
I.L.R. (1967) Andhra Pradesh 546

No comments:

allnews International Cooperative Alliance National Cooperative Union of India Kerala State Cooperative Union Cental Ministry of agriculture and Cooperation Kerala Cooperative Department Minister for Cooperation, Kerala Kerala Laws NCDC NABARD Reserve Bank of India NAFED NCCF Cooperative Service Examination Board KPSC KSCB civil services UPSC