The dispute between a bank/creditor and a co-operative society and its guarantor is not covered under Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 would be applicable in full force.

( 1 ) BY the Court. The factual matrix and questions of law raised being similar, both the writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in the w. P. No. 3627/2000 are adumbrated.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, M/s. M. P. State Co-operative Oilseeds Growers federation Ltd. , is a Co-operative society registered under the provisions of m. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is engaged in the business of procurement, processing and marketing of oilseeds, agricultural produce and its products etc. The Head Office of the petitioner is situated at Bhopal and it has various units at different parts in the State of M. P. The Act was enacted by the State Legislature to organise and develop co-operatives as democratic instruments and peoples institutions based on self help and mutual aid and for curbing exploitation and ensuring socio-economic development of people with particular emphasis on weaker section of the society. Section 31 of the Act provides that the registration of society shall render it a body corporate. Section 64 of the Act provides that any dispute touching the constitution, management of business, terms and conditions of employment of a society on the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute. It is pleaded that a dispute can be raised by the persons provided in various clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner it had availed credit facilities from the M. P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. till the year 1995-96. the Financing bank had shown its unwillingness of finance, as a result of which it was suggested that a consortium may be formed. Accordingly three banks, namely, m. P. State Co- operative Bank Ltd. , Bank of Baroda and Bank of Maharashtra formed the consortium under the leadership of the M. P. State Co- operative bank Ltd. The leader of the consortium is a co- operative society registered under the Act. It is put forth that the respondent No. 1. Bank of Baroda, a nationalised bank had extended the credit facilities to the petitioner for the purpose of running its business with the consortium Banks, the respondents nos. 3 and 4. The said respondent No. 1 filed an application forming the subject-matter of O. A. 325/99 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur against the petitioner and other members of the consortium for recovery of the amount mentioned in the said application. After receipt of the notice from the Tribunal the petitioner entered appearance and filed an application raising preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the application. It was contended by the petitioner before the Tribunal that the petitioner is a cooperative society and the respondent No. 1 was its creditor and, therefore, the bank could not have filed an application before the Tribunal for realisation of its dues by taking recourse to the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity 1993 Act' ). The respondent-Bank filed its reply to the preliminary objection and the Tribunal by order dated 26. 5. 2000, Annexure P/5, came to hold that availing of loan cannot be regarded as an activity pertaining to the business of the society and hence, the recovery of claim under the 1993 Act was maintainable. The Tribunal further held that the subject- matter did not fall within the purview of Section 64 of the Act.

( 4 ) BEING dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal ). Before the Appellate Tribunal it was. contended by the petitioner that proceeding before the Tribunal was not maintainable and the Tribunal has erroneously decided the issue of jurisdiction. The M. P. Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit, the respondent No. 3 herein, supp