The court found that interim orders can be granted under S.95(4) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act even before the Registrar determines if a dispute exists.

1. This petition arises out of an alleged dispute between the petitioners, who are the members of a Co - operative Society and the Co - operative Society known as Mangal Co - operative Housing Society Ltd., the first respondent before us. It appears that at one time the Society had entered into an agreement with the petitioners for the allotment to them of two flats Nos. 13 and 14 after the building which the Co - operative Society was constructing was completed. As a result of a change in the size of the flats there were disputes between the petitioner and the Society and those disputes came to be determined first by the Registrar's Nominee on 14th August, 1961 (Disputes Nos. 120 and 121 of 1959). The Registrar's Nominee had decided the disputes in favour of the petitioners. The Society then went in appeal to the Maharashtra State Co - operative Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 216 and 217 of 1961 and the Tribunal reversed the decision of the Registrar's Nominee. A writ petition filed by the petitioners before this Court was dismissed summarily.

2. Then on the 5th of April, 1963, the petitioners, were informed that the Society had passed a Resolution on 31st of March, 1963, cancelling the allotment of the composite flat which had been allotted to the petitioners. A dispute thus arose and was referred to the Deputy Registrar. On the 18th May, 1963, the District Deputy Registrar appointed a Nominee, Mr. G. B. Terdalkar, to try the dispute. Mr. Terdalkar, after he had passed some interlocutory orders was appointed to another post and therefore, could not give his decision. On 28th August, 1964, the District Deputy Registrar, therefore, referred the alleged dispute for the decision by his Nominee, Mr. S. R. Kaprekar. There were protracted proceedings arising out of an interim order passed by Mr. Kaprekar, and ultimately the matter came before the Maharashtra State Co - operative Tribunal.

3. By that date the decision of this Court in I. R. Hingorani v. Pravinchandra Kantilal Shah , (1965) 67 Bom LR 306, had been pronounced. That decision took the view that before an alleged dispute is referred to the Registrar's Nominee it was incumbent upon the Registrar to issue notice to both the parties and after giving them an opportunity of being heard on the question whether a dispute exists to decide that question himself. It is only after the Registrar has heard the parties or given them an opportunity of being heard that he can satisfy himself that a dispute exists within the meaning of S.91 of the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies Act, 1960. It is that decision of the Registrar which becomes final under S.91(2) of the Act.

4. In view of the decision in Hingorani's case the Tribunal held that the entire proceedings which had preceded their order were bad and "In these circumstances the only alternative for us is to set aside the order made by the Nominee and remand the proceedings back to the District Deputy Registrar to decide first whether there is a dispute falling within the meaning of S.91(1) after following the procedure indicated in the ruling of the High Court." The Tribunal indicated that until this was done the Registrar's Nominee would not be competent to hear a dispute referred to him.

5. When the matter went back the petitioners prayed before the Assistant Registrar that pending the decision of the question whether a dispute exists which, according to the Tribunal had been referred back to him, he should grant the petitioners an interim i