2003 Supreme(Bom) 297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.
Murlidhar Datoba Nimanka others .... Petitioners.
Versus
Harish Balkrushna Latane others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 6590 of 2002, decided on 5-3-2003.
Advocates appeared :
A.A. Kumbhakoni, for petitioners.
G.N. Salunke, for respondent Nos. 1 2.
S.C. Dharmadhikari, i/b. Hitendra Venegavkar, for respondent No. 3.

The provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the Co-operative Courts in the absence of specific provisions to that effect in the Act or the Rules.

Headnote:

CO-OPERATIVE COURTS - JURISDICTION - APPLICABILITY OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are not applicable to the Co-operative Courts in the absence of specific provisions to that effect in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the Act) or the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (the Rules). The Co-operative Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with disputes arising under the Act and the Rules, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred in this regard. The Co-operative Courts are governed by the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules, which provide a detailed mechanism for the settlement of disputes, including the powers of the Co-operative Court to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses, compel the production of documents, and pass interlocutory orders to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. The Act and the Rules also provide for the execution of Awards passed by the Co-operative Courts and for penalties in case of non-compliance of such Awards.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were defendants in a dispute before the Co-operative Court, challenged the order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents, who were plaintiffs in the dispute, against the order of the Co-operative Court rejecting the respondents' application for action under Order 39, Rule 11 of the CPC. The petitioners contended that the provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 of the CPC were not applicable to the Co-operative Court in view of the specific provisions contained in the Act and the Rules.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the Co-operative Courts in the absence of specific provisions to that effect in the Act or the Rules. The Co-operative Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with disputes arising under the Act and the Rules, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred in this regard. The Co-operative Courts are governed by the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules, which provide a detailed mechanism for the settlement of disputes, including the powers of the Co-operative Court to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses, compel the production of documents, and pass interlocutory orders to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. The Act and the Rules also provide for the execution of Awards passed by the Co-operative Courts and for penalties in case of non-compliance of such Awards.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the CPC are applicable to the Co-operative Courts? 2. Whether the Co-operative Courts have jurisdiction to exercise powers under Order 39, Rule 11 of the CPC?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the Co-operative Courts in the absence of specific provisions to that effect in the Act or the Rules. 2. The Co-operative Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with disputes arising under the Act and the Rules, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred in this regard. 3. The Co-operative Courts are governed by the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules, which provide a detailed mechanism for the settlement of disputes, including the powers of the Co-operative Court to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses, compel the production of documents, and pass interlocutory orders to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. 4. The Act and the Rules also provide for the execution of Awards passed by the Co-operative Courts and for penalties in case of non-compliance of such Awards.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The impugned order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court was quashed and set aside. The order of the Co-operative Court dismissing the respondents' application for action under Order 39, Rule 11 of the CPC was confirmed. The various observations made by the courts below regarding the merits of the case were also quashed.