The Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 133 (2) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973, even though the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are excluded by Section 134 (2) of the Act.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, Nowda Thana Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said Society), is one incorporated and constituted under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and at the relevant time, the respondent No. 6, Birendra Nath Bajpayee, was its Secretary. Thereafter, on the basis of certain allegations against the said respondent No. 6, the Managing Committee of the said Society, took decision and passed resolution to the detriment of the said respondent No. 6.

( 2 ) AGAINST such action, the respondent No. 6 filed a dispute under Section 86 of the said Act, before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Murshidabad and by an award dated 28th July 1978, the Arbitrator concerned, declared the resolution of the Managing Committee, relating to the no confidence motion against the respondent No. 6 or the action as proposed to be taken, to be illegal and void inter alia on the ground that the notice as issued by the Chairman of the said Society on diverse dates, were illegal.

( 3 ) AGAINST such determination, the said Society which was required to file necessary appeal on 6th Oct. 1978, filed the same on 18th Oct. 1978. Since the appeal in question was filed out of time they made an application for condonation of delay, after offering their explanation and contending that they were prevented by just and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. So, in fact and admittedly, there was 12 days delay in presenting the appeal and the Tribunal hearing the said appeal, did not entertain the same on the ground that under the provision of the said Act, it had no power, authority or jurisdiction to enlarge time.

( 4 ) IT is against such determination, the present Rule was obtained on 21st Feb. 1979. At the time of issuing the Rule no interim order was granted. But liberty was granted to ask for appropriate interim orders on the same application, after complying with the Rules. On such compliance, respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have appeared through Mr. N. K. Bhattacherjee. The respondent No. 6 has appeared through Mr. S. N. Choudhury.

( 5 ) AT the time of consideration of the prayer for appropriate interim orders, a point arose and which will have to be decided here whether the Tribunal hearing the appeal under the said Act, has power to condone delay or entertain such appeals which are filed out, of time? While on this question, two sections of the said Act, will have to be looked into and they are:-- "133 (2) The Tribunal shall hear such appeals from orders, decisions or awards made under the Act, as are specified in the Third Sch. lying to the Tribunal and shall exercise all powers conferred upon an Appellate Court by Order XLI in the First Sch. to the Civil p. C. 1908. "134 (2) -- The provisions of the Limitation Act 1963, shall not apply to an appeal referred to in Sub-section (1)'" The appeal to the Tribunal as filed under Section 134 and Sub-section (2) as mentioned above, lays down that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall not apply to an appeal referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 134. Section 133 makes provisions for the establishment or constitution of Cooperative Tribunals and Sub-section (2) therein provides that the Tribunal should hear such appeals or orders, decisions or awards made under this Act, as are specified in the Third Schedule as lying to the Tribunal and shall exercise all the powers conferred upon an Appellate Court by Order XLI in the First Sch, to the Civil P. C. 1908.

( 6 ) THERE is no doubt that the Tribunal concerned relied on the provisions of Section 134 (2) and overlooked the provisions in Section 133 (2) of the said Act and came to the conclusion as indicated above.

( 7 ) THUS, in the said Act, there are two provisions available, one of which lays down that Limitation Act would not apply, but the other states that the provisions of Order XLI of the Civil P