1978 Supreme(Raj) 406
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.K.Mal Lodha, J.
Shri Ram Purusharthi Cooperative Society Limited Ujjain - Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Trading Co. Pali and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision No. 176 of 1978.
Decided On : 20-12-1978
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:P.K. Bhansali, Advocate.
For the Non-petitioner:K.C. Samdaria, Advocate.
The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 82 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, in respect of disputes required to be referred to the Registrar under Section 64 of the Act.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT - SECTION 64(1)(C), 82 - DISPUTE TOUCHING BUSINESS OF SOCIETY - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT BARRED - ACT APPLICABLE ONLY WITHIN STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - SUIT INSTITUTED IN RAJASTHAN - PROVISIONS OF ACT NOT APPLICABLE - ORDER OF MUNSIF DISMISSING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION CHALLENGED - REVISION APPLICATION ALLOWED - ORDER SET ASIDE - PLAINT TO BE RETURNED TO PLAINTIFF FOR PRESENTATION BEFORE REGISTRAR.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant cooperative society for recovery of Rs. 4867/- for goods supplied on credit. Defendant filed an application under Section 82(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, contending that the dispute was referable to the Registrar under Section 64 of the Act and the civil court had no jurisdiction. The Munsif dismissed the application, holding that the Act was applicable only within the State of Madhya Pradesh and the suit was instituted in Rajasthan. Defendant challenged the order in revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the dispute relating to the supply of goods was a question touching the business of the society and was covered by Section 64(1)(c) of the Act. The Registrar had exclusive jurisdiction to hear such a dispute. Section 82 of the Act barred the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of disputes required to be referred to the Registrar. The Munsif erred in dismissing the defendant's application and exercising jurisdiction not vested in him by law.
Issues: Whether the dispute relating to the supply of goods was a question touching the business of the society and covered by Section 64(1)(c) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 64(1)(c) of the Act and held that the dispute relating to the supply of goods was a question touching the business of the society. The court also interpreted Section 82 of the Act and held that it barred the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of disputes required to be referred to the Registrar. The court relied on the principle that where a remedy is provided under a statute, no suit or other proceeding shall lie in the civil court except to the extent permitted by the statute itself.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Munsif, and directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the Registrar in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
JUDGMENT
1. - This rule, at the instance of the defendant No. 1 is directed against the order dated January 30, 1978, passed by the learned Munsif, Pali, in civil suit No. 162 of 1975.
2. Non-petitioner No. 1 is the plaintiff. Non-petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 are defendants Nos. 2 & 3. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 instituted suit against the defendant-petitioner and non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 for Rs. 4867/- in the court of Munsif, Pali on November 20, 1975 averring that the plaintiff has supplied goods to defendant No. 1 on credit and that a sum of Rs. 4887/- is outstanding against defendant No. 1. It was also stated by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Cc-operative Societies Act, 1960 (No. XVII of 1961)(for short, 'the Act') Defendant No. 1 was served with the notice on the suit for appearing on April 30, 1976 and on that day, an application was filed inter alia stating that according to Section 82(c) of the Act, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society is required to be referred to the Registrar, or his nominee or Board of Nominees and the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit. In that application, reference was also made to Section 64(1) of the Act which deals with disputes. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed. The plaintiff filed reply to the application dated April 30, 1676 moved by the defendant No. 1 and amongst others, it was mentioned that the provisions of the Act are applicable only within the State of Madhya Pradesh as such, those provisions cannot be extended to the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable in the present case. It was also contended that provisions of Section 82(c) of the Act are not applicable as the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh has got no jurisdiction to interfere in the dispute. The learned Munsif, vide his order dated January 30, 1978, held that according to Section 1(2) of the Act. it is applicable only within the State, of Madhya Pradesh and as the suit was instituted in the State of Rajasthan, the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to the suit and, therefore, he dismissed defendant No. Vs application with costs which were assessed at Rs. 51/-. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated January 30, 1978, defendant No. 1 petitioner has obtained the rule from this Court.
3. I have heard Mr. P.K. Bhansali learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.C. Samdana, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the suit instituted by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Section 82(1)(c) of the Act as it concerned a dispute between the supplier or seller of goods making a claim for the recovery of the balance of the price of the goods supplied in respect of which a cheque is alleged to have been given in the name of the plaintiff and this dispute was referable to the Registrar under Section 64 of the Act for it is a dispute "touching the business of the Co-operative Society". Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as its cognizance is expressly barred under Section 9, CPC. Mr. K.G. Samdaria on the other hand supponed the order under revision by which the learned Munsif held that the Act is applicable only within the State of M.P. and as the suit was instituted in the State of Rajasthan, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. Relevant portion of Section 64 of he Act reads as under,-
"64 disputes. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are among the following,-
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) a person other t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
