CHAGLA, C.J.:- This is an application against an order of the Bombay Co-operative Tribunal. The petitioner is the Malvan Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., situated at Malvan, and it appears that the President of the bank discovered that a sum of Rs.50,000 was shown in the books of account of the bank as having been advanced to opponent No.1 on 6-5-1948. This amount was shown credited on 30-6-1948, although in fact that amount had not been repaid.

The case of the bank further was that this transaction was effected in collusion with the manager and the accountant of the bank. The bank made an application for payment of this amount against opponent No.1 and the manager and the accountant, and the matter was referred to arbitration under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act and the arbitrators held that opponent No.1 and the manager and the accountant were liable to pay to the bank the sum of Rs.50,000 with interest. Against this award opponent No.1 went in revision to the Co-operative Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside that award, and it is against that decision that this application is preferred.

2. The view taken by the Tribunal was that the decision of the arbitrators was covered by an authority of this Court in - Shyam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Ranibai, AIR 1952 Bom 445 (A), and following that authority the Tribunal held that there was no jurisdiction to try this dispute between the bank and opponent No.1. Now, in that decision we construed S.54 of the Act and it is necessary to bear in mind what the facts were before the Bench which necessitated a construction of S.54.

The managing trustee of a public charitable trust had advanced a certain amount to a co-operative society and he was claiming that amount and he had filed a suit to recover that amount, and the society applied for a stay contending that the matter must be referred to arbitration under S.54, and we held that although there was a dispute relating to the business of the society, the dispute was not between the society and the member qua a member, and we pointed out that there was no obligation upon the member to advance that amount, the amount was not advanced as a member, and that the amount might as well have been advanced by a stranger. We further pointed out that it was merely a coincidence that the lender happened to be a member of the co-operative society.

This judgment is relied upon for the contention that in this case also the sum of Rs.50,000 was advanced by the bank, assuming it was advanced, to opponent No.1 not as a member, that in advancing this sum of Rs.50,000 the bank was doing business in respect of hundis, and it was open to the bank to do this business not only with members but with strangers. Mr. Adarkar has argued that this sum of Rs.50,000 was advanced to opponent No.1 as a loan and he has drawn our attention to S.34, Co-operative Societies Act and he says that a loan can only be advanced to a member, and therefore even if our decision applied, this is a case where the claim is made against opponent No.1 as a member of the society and in his capacity as a member. We are not prepared to accept that contention.

It is clear from the case that was made out by the bank before the arbitrators that the sum of Rs.50,000 was advanced on what is known as the bills purchase account. The past course of business clearly establishes that opponent No.1 used to discount bills with the petitioner bank, the petitioner bank used to charge commission, and the sum of Rs.50,000 was also entered in the books of account of the bank as an item in that bills purchase account. This contention now put forward by Mr. Adarkar that this sum of Rs.50,000 represented a loan by the society to its member is being put forward for the first time in this Court.

Apart from the fact that this was never the case of the bank, in our opinion it is a case which cannot possibly be put forward by the bank. No application for a loan was made by opponent No.1, the application