J. B. PARDIWALA, J. A neat question of law falls for our consideration in the present appeal, which is as under :

"Whether the Registrar appointed under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, while adjudicating the application under Sec. 112 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 for leave to continue legal proceedings of Civil Suit, is justified in refusing. to grant leave to continue the suit or other legal proceedings after winding-up order of the society is passed on the premise that before institution of the suit the plaintiff has failed to issue notice under Sec. 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961?"

2. The above-referred question of law arises in the backdrop of the following factual background.

3. The appellant before us is a co-operative society (now in liquidation) registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Societies Act"). The original petitioner entered into agreement of lease dated 1-10-1998 with the appellant-society for conversion contract for a period of five years. The agreement was signed on behalf of the Chairman of the appellant-Society and Director of the original petitioner-company i.e. respondent No. 1 in the present appeal. On 26th April, 2000 a suit being Civil Suit No. 2467 of 2000 was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the appellant-Society in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for breach of agreement of lease-deed dated 1st October, 1998 for non-fulfilment of the agreement by the Society. In the civil suit respondent No. 1 has mainly pleaded that they have suffered huge losses on account of breach of the terms of the agreement by the appellant-Society, and accordingly, prayed for damages and loss sustained by respondent No. 1.

4. It deserves to be noted that during the pendency of Civil Suit No. 2467 of 2000 an order of winding-up of the appellant-Society came to be passed in exercise of powers under Sec. 107 of the Societies Act and Liquidator also came to be appointed under Sec. 108 of the Societies Act on 19th April, 2001. After winding-up order came to be passed, Liquidator . filed Special Civil Suit No. 208 of 2001 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch against respondent No. 1 for recovery of outstanding dues and liquidated damages for breach of the contract.

5. It is important to mention that for the breach of the terms and conditions as enumerated in various clauses of the agreement the parties have filed suits against each other and they are pending before different Courts.

6. As required under Sec. 112 of the Societies Act, respondent No.1 preferred an application for permission to grant leave to proceed further with the suit i.e. Suit No. 2467 of 2000.

7. The application preferred by respondent No. 1 under Sec. 112 of the Societies Act came to be rejected by the Joint Director (Administration), Cottage and Village Industries on the ground that the notice as provided under the provisions of Sec. 167 of the Societies Act was not addressed .to the Registrar before filing of the suit, and therefore, the very institution of the suit was not in accordance with law Accordingly, the prayer for leave was rejected. The said order dated 28-11-2005 passed by respondent No. 3 herein in this appeal was subject-matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 623 of 2006 (reported in Mahendrakumar Indrasinhji Cotton Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 2009 (4) GLR 2995).

8. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 ought not to have rejected the application preferred by respondent No. 1 for leave as contemplated under Sec. 112 of the Societies Act on the premise that Sec. 167 of the• Societies Act had no application at all in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Single Judge is of the opinion that Sec. 167 would apply only if there is any dispute touching the business of the Society. The learned Single Judge is