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:
Post a Comment