The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of statutory provisions and bye-laws to determine the authority to convene a Special General Body Meeting and the legality of its decisions.

ORDER :

Heard learned senior counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Correctness of the judgment and order dated 25.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in CRP No. 26 of 2014 wherein the High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, setting aside the order dated 21.05.2014, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, State Cooperative Tribunal, Manipur in Cooperative Appeal Case No. 1 of 2014 by recording its findings, is under challenge in this appeal urging various factual and legal contentions. Since the High Court in its judgment has adverted to the relevant necessary facts, there is no need for us to advert to the same except referring to the findings and reasons recorded by the High Court.

4. The respondent herein filed Cooperative Appeal Case No. 1 of 2014, questioning the authority of the Chairman of the Manipur Milk Producers' Cooperative Union Ltd., who has, by notice/notification dated 17.01.2014, published in the newspaper, called for Special General Body Meeting to consider certain agendas including Agenda Item No. 5 regarding extension of terms of the contract of engagement of Managing Director and Senior Executive of the Union. Agenda 5 reads as under:

"To review the proceedings of the emergency meeting of the Board of Director dated 14.11.2003 and approval of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Letter No. P.COOP/68-86(Pt.II) dated 09.12.2013-regarding extension of the Terms of Contract engagement of Managing Director & Senior Executive of the Union."

5. The State Cooperative Tribunal, Manipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), after considering the factual and rival legal contentions and adverting to the provisions of Section 76(1) and (2) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') read with Bye-Laws of the Manipur Milk Producers' Co-operative Union Ltd (for short 'the bye-laws') especially clauses 15.4 and 26.2.15 of the bye laws, held that convening of the Special General Body Meeting on 03.02.2014 at 11.00 A.M. in the office premises of the Manipur Milk Producers' Cooperative Union Ltd. (for short 'the Union') on the basis of the requisition dated 06.01.2014, received by the Chairman of the Union, from its members to deliberate certain subjects which were mentioned as agenda items in the notice/notification referred to supra, is valid and legal. The contention urged by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is that Section 76(2) of the Act and clauses 15.4 and 26.2.15 empowers the Managing Director and he alone is authorised to convene the Special General Body Meeting. Therefore, the Chairman of the Union is neither empowered to convene Special General Body Meeting nor to conduct the meeting and deliberate the proceedings on the agenda items particularly Agenda Item No. 5 for extending the term of the Managing Director of the Union.

6. The Tribunal has, after hearing the rival legal contentions urged by the parties and after elaborately adverting to the relevant provisions of the Act and clauses 15.4 and 26.2.15 of the bye-laws has made reference to clause 2.12 which provides that General Meeting includes Special and Ordinary Annual General Meeting. The contentions urged on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent was examined by the Tribunal after formulating the points for its consideration viz., what are the powers of the Chairman of the Union under bye-laws of the Union and whether the Chairman was approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and is empowered to issue notice/notification dated 17.01.2014, whether the same is in compliance of clauses 15.4 and 26.2.15 of the bye-laws and whether the impugned notice/notification dated 17.01.2014 was served on its members and whether the words 'Special Annual General Meeting' ought to have been used instead of 'Special General Body Meeting' and the notice/notification was void.

7. All the aforesaid points were answered by the Tribunal by recording its reaso