Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1464
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUNDAR, JJ.
Uttara Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Pralay Karmakar - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2741 of 2010
Decided On : 10-10-2017
For the Appellant :Mrs. Upma Shrivastava, Abhay Kant Mishra, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S.K. Bhattachary, D.K. Mishra, Anindo Mukherjee, Ms. Sarla Chandra, Ms. Chira Ranjan Addy, Advocates.
The main legal point established is that disputes under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 must be filed within the limitation period, and the Act's provisions apply to the business activities of co-operative societies.
Headnote:
Co-operative Housing Society - Dispute Resolution - West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 - Section 86(1), Bye Law No.4 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a housing society, purchased land and constructed residential flats. A dispute arose with a thika tenant, leading to arbitration and subsequent legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was not time-barred, as it was filed within the limitation period. The provisions of the Act were applicable to the society's business activities, and the High Court had jurisdiction to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator.
Issues: The issues included the timeliness of the dispute, the applicability of the Act to the society's business, and the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the Arbitrator's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute was within limitation, the society's activities fell under the Act's provisions, and the High Court had the authority to correct any patent illegality committed by the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no costs awarded.
ORDER :
Appellant is Uttara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. It purchased about 61 cottahs 6 chittaks of land at 13, Broad Street, Kolkata, from one Manmotha Nath Banerjee and his brother by two registered sale deeds executed in the year 1974.
2. One Manicklal Karmakar, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-herein, was forcible occupier of a small portion of the said land purchased by the petitioner society. Manicklal claimed himself to be a thika tenant in respect of 11 cottahs of land situated on the north-western part of the 61 cottahs of land. Manicklal used to run a motor garage on the land occupied by him.
3. The society constructed 134 residential flats of various sizes and made allotment of the constructed flats to its members. However, 18 flats could not be constructed as Manicklal did not vacate the portion that was in his occupation.
4. In 1976, petitioner society entered into an agreement with Manicklal, whereby Manicklal agreed to surrender his tenancy to the petitioner society, and ultimately did surrender his thika tenancy rights in favour of the petitioner society.
5. One Suresh Chandra Bhowmick became the Chief Executive of the petitioner society. In the year 1979, he entered into an agreement with Manicklal to sell 13 cottahs 14 chittaks of land situated at 206A, Picnic Garden Road, Calcutta-39, belonging to the society. The society applied to Urban Land Ceiling Authority for permission to sell the aforesaid land to Manicklal. Permission was refused. Ultimately, C.R. No.15165 (W) of 1979 was preferred in the High Court at Calcutta, which was allowed on 31.5.1984, setting aside the order of refusal passed by the competent authority; permission to sale was granted.
6. On 28.1.1985, said Manicklal filed a Dispute Case under section 86(1) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 (in short referred to as 'the Act') before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, claiming that cause of action arose on 18.1.2005 i.e. when he had come to know that the society was trying to sell to third parties the land at 206A, Picnic Garden Road.
7. The petitioner society had contended that dispute was barred by limitation, as Section 86(1) of the said Act provided for 30 days' time to raise the dispute from the date of accrual of cause of action.
8. Arbitrator passed award in favor of Manicklal on 24.4.1991. The Tribunal, in appeal, set aside the award of the Arbitrator, and remanded the case for further adjudication. Manicklal expired on 16.4.2000.
9. The High Court, on 19.12.2001, ordered appointment of a fresh Arbitrator, who passed award afresh on 18.7.2005 and directed the society to execute a deed in favour of the legal heirs of Manicklal, with further direction upon them to pay the balance consideration amount as per agreement dated 22.8.1979.
10. An appeal was filed by the Society before the Cooperative Tribunal. The same was allowed, and the award passed by the Arbitrator was set aside. The respondents preferred a writ petition in the High Court at Calcutta. Same had been allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal has been preferred by the society.
11. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant society that dispute was time barred as per the provisions contained in Section 86 of the Act. Secondly, he urged that it was not the business of the society to enter into an agreement to sell; as such the provisions of the Act were not applicable. Hence, no Arbitrator could have been appointed to adjudicate upon the matter; and lastly, that the High Court could not to have interfered with the decision of the Tribunal as there was no patent illegality in the same, and for that, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2003) 3 SCC 524.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has attracted our attention to Section 86(2), and has contended that the dispute could not be said to be barred by limitation. The dispute wa
