SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Honble Mr. Justice G.G. Sohani, President;
Mrs. Saroj Rajwade & Mr. N.K. Vaidya, Members
VURHANPUR CLOTH CORPORATION—Complainant
versus
STATE OF M.P.—Opp. Party
Appeal No. 509 of 1994—Decided on 23.6.1995

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Mohan Chouksey, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party :Mr. Rao & Mr. J.A. Khare, Advocates.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(c) and 15 - Complaint against a Co-operative Society - Section 64(1)(c) of Cooperative Society Act, 1960 provides that any dispute touching the business of society between society and any person shall be referred to Registrar - Section 82 of said Act barring jurisdiction of Civil & Revenue Courts - District Forum holding that it had no jurisdiction to grant relief prayed for - Appeal against - Whether District Forum was right? (Yes), special law under Coop. Society Act will prevail over general law under COPRA. (para 3)

       Result: Appeal dismissed without Costs.

       IMPORTANT POINT

       Special law under Section 64(1)(c) of the Cooperative Society Act, 1960 will prevail over the relevant general law such as the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and In such a case Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for.

       

ORDER

Mr. Justice G.G. Sohani, President — This appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd November, 1994 passed by the District Forum, Khandwa in Case No. 66/94.

2. The appeal arises out of a complaint filed by the appellant against the respondent which is admittedly a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 herein after referred to as the 'Act'. The claim was resisted by the respondent. The District Forum by its impugned order held that the complainant was not entitled to any relief and the complaint was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant has filed this appeal.

3. It was not disputed before us that the dispute raised by the appellant/complainant was in respect of the business of the respondent Co-operative Society. Section 64(1)(c) of the Act provides that any dispute touching the business of the society between the Society and any person with whom the Society has business transactions shall be referred to the Registrar. Section 82 of the said Act provides that no Civil or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute required to be referred of the Registrar under the Act. The said Act can be said to be a special Act in relation to disputes required to be referred to the Registrar for adjudication. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being a law dealing with the question of extending protection to consumers in general is, as observed by the Supreme Court in The Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. The Consumer Protection Council, I (1995) CPJ 3 (SC), a general law and ordinarily the general law must yield to special law. As the special law would prevail over the relevant general law such as the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for.

4. Under the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. No order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed without costs.





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top