The judgment established that the limited liability of members in a co-operative society does not exempt them from liability if their conduct indicates active participation in the society's affairs.

ORDER :

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member

This order will decide the above said nine revision petitions which are between the same parties and common questions of law and facts arise, though the amount of certain FDRs is different in some cases. We have taken the facts from the case RP 3733 of 2013.

2. The parties in question have locked horns over the payment of amount deposited in various FDRs. The case of the complainant No. 1, Ms. Shalu Chandna and her father, Sh. Gulshan Rai Chandna, complainant No. 2, shortly stated is that they had deposited huge amount with the Society under Fixed Deposit Receipts. The details of the deposited amounts in the shape of FDR with its maturity dates in different complaints, is as follows—

3. The Van Khandi Co-operative Non-Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. (Regd.), Ambala City, OP1, was running its business of providing loan and inviting deposits of the public at large at Ambala City. Mr. Pramod Singh Rana, OP2, who is the President of OP1, Mr. M.L. Sehgal, Vice President/OP3, Mr. Satish Kumar, Member, Managing Committee/OP4, have been arrayed as OPs in this case.

4. The allegation of the complainants is that after the maturity date, the OPs did not make the payment of the maturity amount to the complainants. The District Forum came to the conclusion that Sh. M.L. Sehgal did not play any role in this respect, because he had already tendered his resignation to the Society. The District Forum granted relief to the complainants against the OP Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and passed the following order:

“1. To pay the respective maturity amount of each FDR to the complainants with future interest @ 8% p.a., from the date of respective maturity of each FDR till actual realization.

2. Also to pay Rs. 2,000 as costs of litigation in each complaint.”

5. First Appeal was filed before the State Commission, by the complainants. The State Commission accepted the appeal against the OPs. All of them were saddled with the liability, jointly and severally.

6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/M.L. Sehgal, argued with vehemence that the petitioner had resigned on 14.4.2004. The resignation was sent to the Society through UPC. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Haryana, accepted his resignation. Thereafter, Sh. M.L. Sehgal did not participate in the proceedings of the Society nor had he any role to play. He cannot be burdened with the above said liability. He also contended that he is also protected under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984.

7. The second submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner was that the position of a Member of this Society can be equated with that of a Director, as Director is not personally liable. In this regard, he had invited our attention towards the judgment in the case titled The Ashoka Brick Kiln Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Anr., Civil Writ No. 1/1965, decided on 30.10.1968, reported in (1969) 23 STC 43 (P & H), wherein, at para Nos. 3 and 4, it was held:

“3. The important point of law which I am called upon to decide in these cases is with regard to the recovery proceedings started by respondent No. 2 for the recove