The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim for damages against a contractor for the construction of a godown for a co-operative society can be referred to the Registrar for decision under S.69(1)(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and such a claim constitutes a dispute as defined under S.2(i) of the Act.

1. The petitioner in this original petition is a person who entered into a contract with the 4th respondent - The Vaikom Service Co-operative Society Ltd., No. K. 349, Vaikom for the construction of a godown. As the petitioner did not complete the construction in time, the 4th respondent cancelled the contract and completed the construction through somebody else. Thereafter, for realising the damages suffered because of the petitioner's failure to complete the construction, the 4th respondent filed an arbitration before the 3rd respondent-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Vaikom under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for short the Act, and R.67 of the Rules framed thereunder as A.R.C. No. 254 of 1974. The petitioner contested the matter. He filed an application before the 3rd respondent to try the objection that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The 3rd respondent by Ext. P-1 order dated 18 91974 held that he has jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner questions the above order of the 3rd respondent in this original petition. The 4th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. The questions that arise for consideration in this original petition are: (1) Whether the claim for damages against a contractor entrusted with the construction of a godown for a society, the objects of which include the maintenance and letting out of godowns for the storage of agricultural produce of its members will be a matter touching the business of the society and hence a dispute which can be referred to the Registrar for decision under S.69 (1)(f) of the Act and (2) Whether such a claim will be a claim in respect of any sum payable to the society and hence a dispute as defined under S.2(i) of the

Act.

2. Shri S. Parameswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the matter in issue is not a dispute as contemplated by S.2(i) of the Act and hence the 3rd respondent has gone wrong in holding that he has got jurisdiction in the matter. Shri Parameswaran also contends that the matter in issue is not, at any rate, a dispute touching the business of the society and hence the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction under S.69 (I) (f) of the Act to entertain the application for arbitration. According to Shri Parameswaran, the 3rd respondent failed to note that an act might be for the purpose of the business of the Society, but still it will not be a matter touching its business. Shri Parameswaran points out that the deeming provisions in S.69(2) of the Act also will not confer the 3rd respondent with jurisdiction in the matter. Learned counsel then refers to Varghese v. Krishna Menon (1962 KLJ. 43) wherein Raghavan J. (as he then was) has said:

"The section lays down that, if any dispute touching the business of a registered society arises among the members, the Registrar may decide it. The dispute need not directly arise out of the business of the society; it is enough that it should have reference or relation to or concern the business of the society. The word 'touching' was clearly not intended to restrict the meaning of the word to 'busisnes,' it was designed to enlarge its scope. In the instant case the dispute was admittedly between two members of the society and the dispute in some way concerned or related to the business of the society. Hence, it is to be held that the dispute between A and B was one touching the business of the society and that the Registrar has jurisdiction to decide the dispute."

Learned counsel also refers to Coir Industrial Co-operative Society, Chingoli v. Govindan (1962 KLT. 400) wherein Raghavan J. (as he then was) drawing a distinction between a transaction'for the purpose of the business' and one 'touching the business of the Society' has held:

"The expression'touching the business" of the Society occurring in S.60 should be given a wide meaning so as not to restrict the scope of the word 'business' but to enlarge it. That does not mea