The interpretation of 'dispute touching the business of a co-operative society' under the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and the scope of jurisdiction of civil courts in such disputes.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT 1 in this petition, E. Padmanabhayya, was member of and later worked as an appraiser under the petitioner-bank, Surathkal Co-operative Town Bank, Ltd. As a member he had made a deposit of Rs. 1,000 with the petitioner-bank. When he was appointed as an appraiser, that deposit was, by mutual agreement, converted into a fidelity deposit in connexion with his employment as appraiser.

( 2 ) ON account of alleged mismanagement of the affairs of the petitioner-bank, the board of directors was superseded and the management entrusted by the Registrar of Co-operative socities. The administrator, in the course of steps taken by him to rectify defects in the management of the affairs of the bank, terminated the services of the respondent Padmanabhayya and also forfeited the above security deposit of Rs. 1,000.

( 3 ) PADMANABHAYYA, thereupon, filed before the Munsif of Mangalore Original Suit No. 346 of 1963 for a declaration of the invalidity or illegality of the order of the administrator and for a decree directing the repayment of the sum of Rs. 1,000 (being the amount of the forfeited deposit) with interest and other consequential reliefs.

( 4 ) THE bank is a co-operative society within the meaning of the Mysore Co-operative Societies act of 1959. On entering appearance, it raised the plea that the dispute which is the subject-matter of the suit was a dispute within the meaning of S. 70 of the Act and that therefore the exclusive jurisdiction of adjudicating on it vested in the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and that the jurisdiction of civil courts in regard thereto was barred by S. 118 of the Act.

( 5 ) THE Munsif raised an issue on this matter and tried the same as a preliminary issue. He upheld the contention of the society and returned the plaint for presentation to proper authority. Upon appeal by the plaintiff Padmanabhayya, the Civil Judge, Mangalore, has taken a different view. He holds that the dispute is a dispute relating exclusively to control or discipline of an employee of the society and not a dispute touching the business of a co-operative society, and that; therefore, the facts did not attract the operation of Ss. 70 and 118 of the Mysore Co-operative societies Act.

( 6 ) THIS view of the civil Judge is challenged as incorrect in this revision petition and it is contended that because the existence or otherwise of jurisdiction in civil Courts to deal with this matter itself depends upon the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the civil Judge, the case is a fit one for interference by this Court under S. 115, Civil Procedure Code.

( 7 ) THE relevant portion of Sub-section (1) of S. 70 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, reads :

"70 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being is force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society arises - (a) * * * (b) * * * (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased employee of the society. . . "

( 8 ) IN Hukkeri Urban Co-operative Bank v. Mira Sahib [ (1963) 2 Mys. L. J. 294], a case decided by a Division Bench of this Court, the essential tests to be applied in cases of this nature are indicated. The Bench was dealing with S. 54 (1) of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act which in material particulars is to the same effect as S. 70 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act. Their lordships pointed out that the two tests are that the dispute must arise between the persons mentioned in the section and the dispute must touch the constitution or business of the society.

( 9 ) NOW, in the present case, there is no doubt about the fact that the parties to this dispute are the co-operative society on the one hand and an ex-employee thereof on the other and that both the parties answer the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document