The petitioner is a contractor who entered into a contract with the 1st respondent Society for construction of a factory building on behalf of the society. The contract was fulfilled and the amounts due to the petitioner has been paid. Thereafter, the sales tax authorities raised a demand on the 1st respondent-society for payment of sales tax on the works contract entrusted with the petitioner, which the 1st respondent was statutorily bound to deduct from the bill amounts due to the petitioner and pay to the sales tax department. On account of the demand, the 1st respondent-society was forced to pay the same under threat of coercive recovery proceedings. Thereafter, the society demanded that money from the petitioner. Since the petitioner refused to pay the same, the society raised a dispute under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act before the 2nd respondent, who, by Ext. P1 award, upheld the claim of the 1st respondent-society directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 97,741/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 6-9-2001 till realisation and Rs. 762/-as cost of the suit. The petitioner is challenging that award on the ground that the dispute raised by the 1st respondent before the 2nd respondent is not a dispute which could have been validly entertained by the 2nd respondent under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act read with Section 2(i) thereof. According to the petitioner, under Section 69(1)(f), the dispute would lie before the 2nd respondent only if the petitioner was a person with whom the society had business transaction which the petitioner did not have. He further points out that under Section 2(i), the dispute is defined to mean a matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a society and this dispute does not touch the business, constitution, establishment and management of the 1st respondent-society. He also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain and others, AIR 1969 S C 1320 as also the decision of this Court in Trippunithura Handloom Weaving Co-operative Society v. Ratnakumar, 2001 (1) KLJ 651 = 2001(2) KLT S.N.41 (Case No. 46) in support of his contentions. The petitioner would further contend that even otherwise, the amount now demanded is not an amount due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent-society but is an amount due to the sales tax authorities.

2. In answer, relying on the objects of the society quoted in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-society would submit that it is the business of the society to construct buildings or acquire them on rent or otherwise for installation of power looms for which purpose only the contract has been given to the petitioner for construction. Therefore, according to the 1st respondent, the dispute would certainly lie before the Registrar. Regarding the second contention raised by the petitioner, counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that once the amount due by way of sales tax from the petitioner to the sales tax authorities is realised from the 1st respondent, the amount becomes due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent-society and therefore the contention of the petitioner is devoid of any merits.

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

4. Section 69(1) (f) reads thus:

"69. Disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises, -

xx xx xx

(f) between the society and a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions or any person claiming through such a person;

xx xx xx"

Section 2(i) reads thus:

2(i) "dispute" means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation and inc