Key Points: - The petitioner’s status as a manager in charge of a shop does not automatically make him an officer or part of the society’s management under Section 88; the court distinguishes shop management from the society’s overall business directions (!) (!) (!) . - The definition of "officer" in Section 2(20) includes persons empowered to give directions in regard to the business of the society; the petitioner was not shown to have such power, thus not an officer for Section 88 purposes (!) (!) (!) . - The dispute regarding stock shortage against the petitioner was held to be within Section 91, not Section 88, considering the petitioner’s role as a servant and the Society’s right to recover under Section 91; amendments in 2001 clarified appellate exclusions but did not alter the core finding here (!) (!) (!) . - The amendment excluding Registrar orders from Section 91 applies prospectively and affects which matters are triable under Section 91 vs. appeal under Section 152; this case notes the amendment but applies to the time frame of the proceedings (!) (!) . - If a matter is triable under Section 88, it would be appealable under Section 152, thus excluded from Section 91; the court analyzes whether the subject matter falls under 88 or 91 in this case (!) (!) . - The Registrar’s power under Section 88 involves determining misfeasance or breach of trust by officers or persons involved in management; the court concluded the petitioner did not fall within that scope (!) (!) . - The trial court’s assessment on admissions of shortage and the appellate court’s reconsideration were discussed to establish who bears responsibility; the appellant court concluded the Society proved the shortages (!) (!) (!) . - The case directs submission of auditor’s report to the Registrar under Section 81(5-A) for appropriate action (!) (!) . - The petition was dismissed; no merit found under Article 226; interim order vacated (!) . - The specific facts: petitioner appointed as Manager of cloth section; stock shortage discovered; society sought recovery under Section 91; appellate court found in favor of society (!) (!) .

What is the scope of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act when a petition seeks recovery for stock misappropriation by a society employee?

What constitutes an "officer" of a society under Section 2(20) of the Act, and is a shop-in-charge or manager automatically an officer or within management to attract Section 88?

What is the relationship between Section 88 and Section 91 in determining whether a matter should be heard under the Co-operative Court or under Section 152/154 appeals, particularly after amendments?