Back
1963 Supreme(Cal) 134
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. Basu
SYAMAPADA BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
ASST. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BURDWAN - Respondent
C. R. 1076 (W) Of 1961
Decided On : JUNE 28, 1963
BALAI CHANDRA ROY, N.C.CHAKRAVARTI, SUDHIS CHANDRA ACHARYA, USHA MUKHERJI
A dispute between a society and an ex-officer is a 'dispute' as envisaged by Section 86 of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1912.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - DISPUTE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 86 OF THE BENGAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1912 - DISPUTE BETWEEN SOCIETY AND EX-OFFICER - WHETHER WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 86 - HELD, YES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ex-Secretary of a co-operative society, challenged an order of attachment before judgment issued by the Assistant Registrar under Section 125 of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, claiming that the proceedings were without jurisdiction and violated the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the dispute between the society and the ex-officer was within the purview of Section 86 of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, and that the proceedings were intra vires.
Issues: Whether a dispute between a society and an ex-officer is a 'dispute' as envisaged by Section 86 of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1912.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 86 of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, and held that the word 'among' in the first part of the section suggests that the dispute may be between any two of the parties mentioned in the succeeding clauses, by permutation and combination. The court also considered the legislative precedents on the same subject and found that under all the foregoing three precedents a dispute between a society and its officer, past or present, is a dispute over which the domestic tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application and discharged the Rule, without any order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE point for determination-in this application under Article 226 is solely one of statutory interpretation, namely, that of Section 86 of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (1940? ).
( 2 ) THE petitioner is an ex-Secretary of the Guskara Union Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society (Respondent 3) which is a society governed by the above-mentioned Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bengal Act' ). A 'dispute' under Section 86 of the Bengal Act, being Dispute Suit No. 2111-B of 1960-61 has been instituted. Before the Asst. Registrar (Respondent No. 1) by the Society (Respondent 3), claiming to recover money alleged to have been defalcated by the Petitioner while acting as the Secretary of the Society jointly with another person, ex-Manager of the Society, (vide Ann. C) and the Asst. Registrar has issued an order of attachment before judgment, dated 19-7-61, under Section 125 of the Bengal Act (Ann. A ). The petitioner has challenged the order of attachment as without jurisdiction and the proceedings as violating the principles of natural justice and asked for orders in the nature of mandamus and certiorari.
( 3 ) THE various points averred in the Application and the counter-affidavits need not be traversed inasmuch as the only point urged before me at the hearing on behalf of the Applicant is that the proceedings in the Dispute Suit are without jurisdiction as the dispute between the Society and an ex-officer is not a 'dispute' as envisaged by Section 86 of the Bengal Act.
( 4 ) SECTION 86 of the Bengal Act runs as follows --"any dispute touching the business of a cooperative society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a society or its managing committee against a paid servant of the society) or of the liquidator of a society shall be referred to the Registrar if the parties thereto are among the following, namely:- (a) the society, its managing committee, any past or present officer, agent or servant or the liquidator of the society; or (b) a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of the society; or (c) a surety of a member, past member or deceased member of the society, whether such surety is or is not a member of the society; or (d) any other co-operative society or the liquidator of such society. "the contention of the learned Advocate on behalf of the Applicant is that a 'dispute' in order to come within the ambit of Section 86 must be a dispute one of the parties to which is a person mentioned in any of the clauses and the other party is a person mentioned in any of the other clause? of the section, and that a dispute as between the persons mentioned in the same clause, inter se, is not a 'dispute' within the purview of the section. In other words, a dispute between the society (Clause (a) ) and a member or ex-member of the society (Clause (b) ) will be governed by the section but a dispute between the society and an officer or ex-officer will be outside its scope because both these parties are mentioned in the same Clause (a ).
( 5 ) I am unable to accept this contention, for a number of reasons :- (a) Firstly, such a construction would go against the policy of the Act as is apparent from its various provisions. There is a Central Act relating to Co-operative Societies, namely, Act II of 1912. Notwithstanding this, special Acts have been made in almost all States in order to make further provisions to the same end. While the Preamble to the Central Act says : "whereas it is expedient further to facilitate the formation of co-operative societies. . . . . . . . . ", the Preamble to the Bengal Act says : --"whereas it is expedient to make further provision for the formation and working of cooperative societies, and for the promotion of thrift, self-help and mutual aid among persons of moderate means. . . . . "
( 6 ) IT is evident that the Bengal Act seeks to incorporate additional provisions for the better working of
