SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., A.N. RAY AND D.G. PALEKAR, JJ.
Panchshila Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. (Multi-Unit), Appellant
Versus
The Gurgaon Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Gurgaon, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2293 (N) of 1970, D/- 6-8-1971. ,
Advocates appeared
Mr. Harbans Singh, Advocate, for Appellant; M/s. Rameshwar Dial and A. D. Mathur, Advocates, for Respondent.
Punjab Co-operative. Societies Act, 1961 – Sections 56, 55, 29 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 14 – Appropriate Authority – Whether Central Registrar was appropriate authority on facts of this case – Appeal by special leave is against order of Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, New Delhi, dismissing appeal filed by Panchshila Industrial Cooperative Society (Multi Unit), appellant before us, against award passed by Arbitrator (Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Rohtak), in respect of dispute between Gurgaon Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gurgaon, respondent before us, and appellant. – Central Registrar held that he was not appropriate appellate authority against award in question. – Held, There is no doubt that by virtue of States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and S. 5A of Multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, court appellant has become a multi-unit co-operative society and Multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act applies to it. But that Act is for incorporation, regulation and winding up of co-operative societies with objects not confined to one State, and it has no impact on S. 55 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 inasmuch as appellant remains a member of co-operative Societies namely, respondent Bank. – There is nothing in provisions of Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act to indicate that a multi-unit co-operative society cannot be a member of a co-operative society governed by Punjab Act of 1961. – If appellant continues to be a member, then terms of S. 55 apply and a dispute can be referred to arbitration under that section. – An appeal against that award lies under S. 68 of Punjab Act of 1961 to Government if decision or order was made by Registrar, and to Registrar if decision or order was made by any other person. – It is quite clear therefore that Central Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear appeal. – Counsel next contends that Central Registrar should not have dismissed appeal but returned memorandum of appeal for presentation to proper authority. – There is no statutory provision enabling Central Registrar to do so. At any rate, if an appeal is filed before appropriate authority under Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, that authority will no doubt take into consideration provisions of S. 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, read with S. 29 (2) and decide whether appeal should be entertained or not – Appeal Dismissed
Judgment
SIKRI, CJI. : - This appeal by special leave is against the order of the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, New Delhi, dismissing the appeal filed by Panchshila Industrial Cooperative Society (Multi Unit), appellant before us, against the award passed by the Arbitrator (Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Rohtak) dated October 7, 1969, in respect of the dispute between the Gurgaon Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gurgaon, respondent before us, and the appellant. The Central Registrar held that he was not the appropriate appellate authority against the award in question.
2. The only question which arises before us is whether the Central Registrar was the appropriate authority on the facts of this case. The relevant facts are these. The respondent Bank approached the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Haryana, for resolving a dispute between the Bank and one of its members, appellant before us. The Registrar, by his order dated February 17, 1968, in exercise of the powers vested in him under S. 56 of the Punjab Co-operative. Societies Act, 1961, referred the dispute to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak for decision. The arbitrator gave the award on October 7, 1969, directing that the appellant do pay to the respondent in all Rupees 16,05,658.20 together with interest at the rate of six and a half per cent per annum until the realisation of the principal amount, viz. Rs. 11,52,535.00.
3. The appellant, as mentioned above, filed an appeal against this award before the Central Registrar. The respondent Bank is a co-operative society governed by the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act 1961. Section 55 (1) of this Act inter alia provides that if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society arises between a member and the society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. Section 55 (2) provides that for the purposes of subsection (1) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not, shall be deemed to be a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of the co-operative society. Sub-section (3) of S. 55 provides that "if any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court."
4. There is no doubt that the dispute between the respondent Bank and the appellant fell within S.55 and was properly referred to arbitration under that section. It is, however, contended that the appellant was registered in December 1955 under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1955, and by virtue of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and S. 5A of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, the appellant has ceased to be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act because it has become a multi-unit co-operative society. There is no doubt that by virtue of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and S. 5A of the Multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, We appellant has become a multi-unit co-operative society and the Multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act applies to it. But that Act is for the incorporation, regulation and winding up of co-operative societies with objects not confined to one State, and it has no impact on S. 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 inasmuch as the appellant remains a member of the co-operative Societies namely, the respondent Bank. There is nothing in the provisions of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act to indicate that a multi-unit co-operative society cannot be a mem
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.