Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

All these petitions are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as they involve similar questions of law and facts.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the second respondents in all the petitions are the members of the petitioner Co-operative Society. The petitioner Co-operative Society allotted the sites and subsequently executed the registered sale deeds in their favour. Their grievance is that though the sale value is only Rs.5,00,000/- as shown in the instrument (sale deed), a sum of about Rs.8,50,000/- (different amounts from the different members) is collected from them. Some of them also have the grievance that from the similarly placed members of the petitioner Society, what is collected is only Rs.1,80,000/- towards the full sale consideration. Seeking the refund of excess sale consideration with interest, they raised the dispute before the first respondent invoking Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. In the said dispute proceedings, the petitioner Society raised the "issue of maintainability. The petitioner Society contended that the allegations and averments in the memorandum of the dispute do not touch upon the constitution, management and business of the petitioner Society. The issues raised by them can only be adjudicated in a competent Civil Court. On the first respondent overruling the preliminary objections and holding that the dispute is maintainable, these petitions are filed.

3. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K. Srikanth Patil for the petitioner submits that the second respondents cannot maintain the suit against the petitioner Co-operative Society for the recovery of the amounts which the second respondents claim to have paid in excess. He submits that second respondents' grievances, if any, are to be ventilated only before a Civil Court. He submits that Section 70(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the said Act' for short) deals with the parties to the disputes, whereas Section 70(2) of the said Act deals with what a dispute is. Section 70(2) enumerates the categories of the cases in respect of which the disputes can be raised. He read out the said provisions, which are extracted herein-below:

"70(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely–

(a) 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;

(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;

(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or Member of Committee of the society;

(d) any dispute between a co-operative society and its employees or past employees or heirs or legal representatives of a deceased employee, including a dispute regarding the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a co-operative society notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947);

(e) a claim by a co-operative society for any deficiency caused in the assets of the co-operative society by a member, past member, deceased member or deceased officer, past agent or deceased agent or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant or by its committee; past or present whether such loss be admitted or not."

4. He relies upon this Court's decision in the case of Scheduled Caste (Harijan) House Building Co-operative Society Limited and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, re