Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
Shri Vignahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12840 of 2016, Civil Application No. 23 of 2022
Decided On : 02-02-2023
CO-OPERATIVE DISPUTE - AUTHORIZATION OF DISPUTE FILING - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 91; Code of Civil Procedure, Order 29 Rule 1 - The court discussed the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, particularly Section 91, which allows disputes between co-operative societies to be referred to the Co-operative Court. The court interpreted that the requirement for authorization to file a dispute is not strictly procedural and that the absence of a resolution at the time of filing does not invalidate the dispute if proper authorization exists. The court emphasized that procedural defects are curable and should not impede justice, leading to the conclusion that the appellate court's decision to allow the appeal was justified.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a co-operative sugar factory, filed a dispute against the petitioner for recovery of amounts due for sugarcane supplied under an agreement. The Co-operative Court dismissed the dispute on technical grounds related to the authorization of the person who filed it. The respondent appealed, arguing that the dispute was filed with proper authorization.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the dispute was indeed filed with proper authorization, supported by resolutions from the respondent's management. It set aside the trial court's findings that the dispute was not maintainable due to lack of authorization and modified the judgment to award the amounts claimed by the respondent.
Issues: Whether the dispute was filed with proper authorization and whether the absence of a resolution at the time of filing invalidated the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court held that the lack of a resolution at the time of filing did not affect the maintainability of the dispute, as the managing director had the authority to file it. The court emphasized that procedural defects are curable and should not prevent the pursuit of justice.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's decision to allow the appeal and modify the judgment in favor of the respondent.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenges the judgment and order dtd. 17/2/2014 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Pune, whereby an appeal filed by the respondent (Appeal No. 148 of 2007) has Page 1 of 27 ------------------------- 2/2/2023 29-wp 12840-16@caw 23-22.odt been allowed in the following terms:-
<WXY>" ORDER
1. The appeal bearing No. 148/2008 is hereby allowed.
2. The observations and order of Ld. Trial Judge to issue No.2 and 5 in dispute bearing No. 318/1992 are hereby set aside.
3. The Judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Judge is modified as under:
I) The respondent/opponent is hereby ordered to pay the appellant an amount of Rs.51,38,967.17 with interest @ 12% p.a. (a) on an amount of Rs.24,22,660.40 (sugarcane price) from 30/07/1991 till realization. (b) On an amount of Rs.23,90,749.52 (Transportation charges) from 11/10/1990 till realization. (c) On an amount of Rs.3,25,557.25 (Cutting charges as per recommendation of Rupawate Committee) from 30/07/1991 till realization.
II) The respondent/opponent are also directed to pay the cost of dispute to the appellant/disputant as under: A) Court Fees Rs.1000.00 B) Court Stamps Rs.45.00
4. The Ld. Trial Judge is hereby directed to draw the award accordingly.
5. No order as to costs.
6. R and P of Trial Court be sent back to the Trial Court."</WXY>
2. The facts relevant for adjudication of this petition are required to be noted:- The respondent had approached the Co-operative Court in Dispute No. 318 of 1992 praying for recovery of the amount of Rs.39,39,953.02 against the petitioner with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as on 5/1/1992.
3. It is not in dispute that both the parties are registered co-operative sugar factories. It appears that there was abundant sugarcane crop in the year 1989-90 within the area of operation of the respondent's sugarcane factory, which was available for crushing. The petitioner on the offer had in its area had faced shortage of sugarcane to utilize its maximum crushing capacity. An agreement dtd. 7/11/1989 came to be entered between the parties for supply of excess sugarcane by the respondent society to the petitioner. It appears that the respondent had supplied 97,440 tons of sugarcane to the petitioner. It was also agreed between the parties that the charges for cutting and transportation of sugarcane at an additional or enhanced rate for the same was required to be borne by the petitioner. These amounts in fact are to be paid to sugarcane farmers and the transporters of sugarcane which may be by tractors or bullock carts. Thus, the claims involved amounts to be paid to farmers and transporters. As the petitioner failed to pay the said amounts honouring the terms and conditions of the agreement dtd. 7/11/1989, the dispute in question came to be filed by the respondent raising such monetary claim and payment of interest thereon.
4. The petitioner appeared in the said dispute and filed its written statement. In paragraph 2 of the written statement, an objection was raised by the petitioner that the dispute is not properly presented by the respondent as it was not signed by the authorized person on behalf of the respondent.
5. The Co-operative Court, after granting the parties an opportunity to lead evidence, proceeded to adjudicate the dispute on the following issues:-
(Emphasis added)
6. Issue No. 5 concerned the objection as raised by the petitioner that the dispute was filed by the respondent without due authorization and hence the same was not maintainable. Such issue was answered in favour of the petitioner inter-alia observing that Shri A. V. Jagtap who had filed the dispute in the capacity of Managing Director of the respondent and who signed the vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent, had no authority to file the dispute in question. Although such conclusion was drawn, the Co-operative Court had also observed that there were two resolutions of t
The court established that authorization to file a dispute under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not require strict adherence to procedural formalities, and that defects in authorizat....
The court clarified that statutory bar under Order VII Rule 11(d) requires clear prohibition for dismissal, emphasizing the distinction between jurisdiction and maintainability.
High Court cannot in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct the bank to positively consider the benefit of one time settlement to writ petitioner.
The jurisdiction to hear cooperative disputes lies with the Cooperative Court when the matters directly impact the society's business and management.
The court affirmed that the Appellate Court has broad discretion to condone delays in filing cross-objections, especially when justified by unique circumstances such as prolonged stays and the death ....
The court found that interim orders can be granted under S.95(4) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act even before the Registrar determines if a dispute exists.
Failure to apply for defense in a summary suit under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act results in acceptance of the claims made by the plaintiff.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
