N. H. BHATT, S. L. TALATI, J.

( 1 ) * * * *

( 2 ) MR. R. N. Shah the learned advocate for the appellant M. G. Patel and Co. however had two fold submissions to be made in this connection. He firstly stated that sec. 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act would not be attracted at all because the claim for money was not touching the business of the society. The business of the society as could be gathered from the Certificate of Registration ex. 107 was to construct buildings on Co-operative basis to purchase lands to sell lands to hire lands to develop lands and to prosecute other objects which would ultimately ameliorate the physical education and cultural well being of its members. The purchase of land is one of the main objects of the society. Any cause of action that has got a direct bearing with the purchase of land has to be said as touching the business of the society. the word `touching from its common sense connotation is suggestive of concerning. The plaintiffs claim for the unpaid amount of consideration is directly rooted in the defendant societys purchase of land. The question of payment of consideration arose because the society was out to purchase the land in prosecution of its objects. So the question of consideration its payment or non payment is invariably associated with the purchase of land by this defendant society. In our view therefore it is too spacious a plea to be urged that the present subject matter of the suit is not touching the business of the society. It vitally concerns itself with the business of the society as we are almost compelled to hold despite our dislike for the rejection of an otherwise tenable claim only on a technical plea.

( 3 ) MR. Shah however in this connection invited our attention to certain authorities which we are required to deal with at this stage. The authorities referred to are A. I. R. 1969 S. C. 1320 A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 1893 A. I. R. 1967 Bombay 21 and this High Courts judgment reported in 20 G. L. R. 71 (STATE V. AGA MOHMAD ). In our opinion they are not germane to the case on hand and so we do not propose to burden this judgment by referring to those authorities. We however would like to say that one judgment of the Orissa High Court reported at A. I. R. 1975 ORISSA PAGE 137 (RANGALAL RAMESHWAR LAL and ORS. V. UTKAL RASTRABHASA PRACHAR CO-OP. PRESS and PUBLISHERS SOCIETY LTD. and ORS) clearly helps Mr. Shah and the plaintiff of the civil suit no. 33/63 M. G. Patel and Co. It is the judgment of a Single Judge of that court. The respondent cooperative society was running a press on co-operative basis and had purchased certain papers the essential material for carrying out the purpose of the society. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs there against the society for the balance of the purchase price. There is the Orissa Co operative Societies Act 1962 having sec. 127 which we would like to reproduce here. Said sec. 127 reads as follows:-"127. No suit shall be instituted against a society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the constitutions management or the business of the society until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office stating the cause of action the name description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims and the paint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. " in that case the learned Judge held that the suit was not one in respect of an act touching the business of the society within the meaning of the section. Said sec. 127 quoted above is almost identical with sec. 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. We however feel constrained to record our respectful disagreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court. We have already stated above that the word touching is synonymous with concerning an whatever is directly concerned with the business of the society is th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document