Back
1970 Supreme(J&K) 37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Mian Jalal-ud-Din, J.
Bk. Abdul Majid & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Union Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Suit Nos. 5 And 31/1965
Decided On : 04 May, 1970
Advocate For Appellant: S.I. Koul
Advocate For Respondent: D.N. Mahajan
Advocate For Respondent: Ishwar Singh
The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, does not apply to a society's branch or place of business outside the State of Maharashtra.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960 - SECTIONS 159, 163, 164 - INSURANCE ACT, SECTION 2-D - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CLAIM ON INSURANCE POLICIES - WHETHER BARRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960 - WHETHER MAINTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT FORM.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Abdul Majid, filed two suits against the defendant, Union Co-operative Insurance Society, for enforcement of claims on various insurance policies. The defendant raised preliminary objections, including that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and that the suit was not maintainable in its present form.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, did not apply to the defendant's branch in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, and therefore, the suit was not barred by the provisions of the Act. The court also held that the suit was maintainable in its present form, as the plaintiff had the right to claim loss sustained under the policies.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act of 1960? 2. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, extends only to the State of Maharashtra and not beyond that. 2. Section 159 of the Act prohibits a society from opening a branch or place of business outside the State of Maharashtra without the permission of the Registrar. 3. The defendant did not obtain permission from the Registrar to open a branch in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir. 4. Therefore, the Act does not apply to the defendant's branch in Srinagar, and the suit is not barred by the provisions of the Act. 5. The plaintiff has the right to claim loss sustained under the policies, as there is no agreement to the contrary.
Final Decision: The court held that the suit was not barred by the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and that the suit was maintainable in its present form. However, the court held that the claim of the plaintiff under Policy No. 502 was not triable by the court, and therefore, the claim was not maintainable in the present form in the court.
1. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act of 1960? O. P. D.
2. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? O. P. D.
2. These cases originally came up for hearing before Honble Mr. Justice S. M. F. Ali, as His Lordship then was, and thereafter before Honble Mr. Justice J. N. Bhat when these were transferred to the files of this Bench. Part of the evidence has been recorded earlier when in suit No. 5 an application was made by the defendant for incorporating in his written statement another preliminary objection to the suit that by virtue of the jurisdiction clause No. 15 in the Policy No. 502, the suit in respect of this policy was barred in Srinagar and the same could not be tried here. That application was allowed and the defendant filed an amended written statement. Consequent upon it an additional preliminary issue in Suit No. 5 of 1965 was raised which is as follows: -
"Has this court territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the suit in view of the jurisdiction Clause in the Policy No. 502? 0. P. P." The plaintiff examined J. B. Daniels and Mr. Bashir Ahmed Senior Assistant Jammu and Kashmir State Financial Corporation on this issue.
3. Previously the Court recorded the statement of Bk. Abdul Majid plaintiff on other preliminary issues.
4. Mr. J. B. Daniels stated that he was the Divisional Manager of the defendant Insurance Company in Srinagar upto 15th of August, 1964. The Head Office of the defendant is in Bombay and it had a Branch in Srinagar. As Divisional Manager he transacted business in General Insurance in Srinagar for the defendant. The plaintiff took out policies under the General Insurance from the defendant. Amaresh Cinema, Ramposh Hotel and other buildings were got insured by the plaintiff with the defendant. Upto the end of 1962 or earlier the position was that clause relating to the jurisdiction which found place in the policies used to be Bombay, but later on in September, 1962, the witness addressed communication to the Head Office requesting them to change the place of jurisdiction from Bombay to Srinagar in respect of all the policies that were to be issued by the defendant. This request was acceded to by the Head Office and the jurisdictional clause was modified by changing Bombay to Srinagar. This also applies to the Insurance policies taken out by the plaintiff. In regard to policy No. 502 the witness stated that he remembered that one of the Insurance experts of Kashmir who was also the Director of State Financial Corporation called the witness to his office and therein the jurisdictional clause viz., place from Bombay to Srinagar was changed among Other things. But, the witness went on to say, any further modification in the policy was to be recorded by way of an endorsement or by means of a letter. The witness has proved copies of the letters Ex. P. W. 1/4, Ex. P. W. 1/5, Ex. P. W. 1/6 and Ex. P. W. 1/7. The witness has admitted in cross-examination that. Policy No. 502 was taken out in January 1963 and at that time according to the copy of the Insurance Policy on the file Bombay was the place of jurisdiction and then it was modified in the month of September, 1963. It was then when the interest of Financial Corporation was endorsed on the policy. The witness is no longer in the service of the defendant and his services have been terminated.
5. Bashir Ahmed P. W. stated that the original Policy No. 502 is not in the custody of J. and K. State Financial Corporation and has been destroyed.
6. Bk. Abdul Majid as his own witness stated that in respect of General Insurance Policies all the disputes had to be settled at Srinagar. The defendant had a Branch office at Srinagar. Mr. Daniels was its Manager. The witness was never told that the defendant Insurance Company has been registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In cross-
