The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insolvency Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a debtor of a co-operative society as an insolvent as provided by the Insolvency Act, despite the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

1. The first counter petitioner in T. P. No. 4/78 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Quilon is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. I. P. No. 4/ 78 was filed by the first respondent herein for adjudicating him as an insolvent under the Insolvency Act, Act 2 of 1956. The petitioner is a cooperative society who has got an award against the first respondent. The society contended that the Subordinate Judge's Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the Insolvency Act because of the provisions contained in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Reliance was placed by the society on S.69 and 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 16-11-1979 over-ruled the objections and found the petition to be maintainable. The society challenged that decision before the District Court, Quilon in A. S. No. 32/80. The learned District Judge by judgment dated 23-1-1981 dismissed the appeal and hence this civil revision petition.

2. The short question that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the insolvency petition filed by the first respondent before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Quilon is barred in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. S.100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act reads as follows:

"Bar of jurisdiction of courts. No civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which provision is made in this Act."

This section bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of matters for which provisions are made in the Act. S.69 provides for settlement of disputes between parties. It states that "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force" a dispute between a co-operative society on the one hand and the parties mentioned therein on the other has to be decided in accordance with the provisions laid down in that section. This shows that in case if there is a dispute between the present petitioner on the one hand and the first respondent on the other, as provided by Clause.2 of S.69, such a dispute is to be decided as provided therein. Only in respect of matters for the settlement of which provisions are seen made in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act can it be said that the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted.

3. In the instant case there was a dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent regarding the amounts due to the society. That was adjudicated upon as provided by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The arbitrator found that the first respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 64,920/-to the society. Once the award is passed the dispute between the parties has been decided upon and thereafter it cannot be said that the dispute subsists. There remains nothing further to be done in the matter. The Co-operative Societies Act provides for the steps to be taken by the society for realising the amounts covered by the award. But if the judgment debtor has other debts and according to him his debts exceed the assets he has got the right to approach an insolvency court to get himself adjudicated an insolvent. This matter is outside the purview of the Co-operative Societies Act. That Act does not provide for any machinery to deal with such a situation.

4. The first respondent is not in a position to discharge his debt due to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is another creditor. Therefore he wants to get himself adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of the Insolvency Act. For that matter he has approached the civil court. Since such a situation is not one for which provision has been made in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court under S.100 of that Act cannot operate against the proceedings. In the decision State of Punjab v. Rattan Singh (A.I.R.1964 SC 1223), a bench of 5 judges of the Supreme Court had to consider the jurisdicti