Meera Lebbe V. Vannarponnai West Co Operative Society

1947 Present : Canekeratne J.

MEERA LEBBE, Appellant and VANNARPONNAI WEST
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY , Respondent.

247-C. R. Jaffna 16559

Co-operative societies Ordinance (Cap ,107), s. 45(1) - Dispute between Cooperative society and member but not in latter's capacity as member - Applicability of s.45(1).

The claim of a co-operative society up on a member , who was appointed the manager of its stores ,for misappropriating moneys of the society can not be regarded as dispute between the society and the one of its members within the meaning of section 45(1) of the cooperative societies Ordinance.

APPEAL from a judgment of the commissioner of requests, Jaffna.

C. Chellappah, for the plaintiff ,appellant.

H. W. Thambiah, for the defendant respondent.

Cur. adv vult.

February 27,1947. CANEKERATNE J.-

This is an appeal from the decision of the commissioner of requests ,Jaffna, who made order dismissing the plaintiff's action for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 250 part of the security deposited by him with the defendant, and interest there on. The defendant is a cooperative society. It appears according to what was stated at the argument purchase articles such as rice, foodstuffs, and other things and sell them to its members. The plaintiff who was a member of the society, was appointed the manager of the stores oft eh defendant about May, 1943,and functioned as manager for some time, his services were dispensed with on September 1,1944. This action was instituted by him on May 12, 1945.

The defence originally was that the plaintiff had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1370.12 and that the defendant was entitled to a set off against the claim of the plaintiff ; by an amendment the society pleaded that he action was barred by the provisions of paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) of sub -section (1) of section 45 of the Co-operative societies

Ordinance . The commissioner came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was an offer of the society because he was the manager as it was conceded that the plaintiff was a member of the society he seemed to take the view that sub-paragraph (b) also applied.

Counsel for the appellant submitted in the first place that the dispute was not between the plaintiff qua member and the society; on this point he relied on the language user in the section Counsel for the respondent maintained the contrary by making use of the same language. Counsel for the appellant argued. Secondly that the plaintiff was not an officer of the society. I was referred by him to several cases which I do not propose to discuss. These are cases in which a particular person was held not to be an officer for the purposes of a particular statutory enactment, or under particular circumstances, it is to be observed that none of these cases considers the position of a manager of a store. I fail to see how they help the plaintiff. Counsel for the respondent tried to support the views advanced by the trial judge on this point. Since the conclusion on the argument counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the decision in Wasudeo v. Registrar 1.[(1946) 33 A. I. R. Bombay, 346.]

The appeal relates to the questions arising primarily under section 45 sub-section 1 of chapter 107. The sub section provides that "if any dispute touching the business of a registered society arises (a) ??.  (b) between a member ,past member or ?? and the society , its committee or any officer of the society or (c) between the society or its committee and any officer of the society ,?.. such dispute shall be referred to the registrar for decision". It is necessary to show that there is a dispute between the parties concerned . To show that here is a dispute between the parties concerned. To show that there is a dispute within the purview of the registrar it is necessary to show first that it is one touching the business of the society. ; Secondly it must arise

Click Here to Read the rest of this document