Govindasamy V. Mohamadu Ibrahim Et Al.,

1951    Present: Gratiaen J. and Gunasekara J.

GOVINDASAMY (Liquidator of the Kattankudy Rahumaniya

Textile Workers Co-operative Society), Appellant, and

MOHAMADU IBRAHIM et al., Respondents

S. C. 48 (Inty.)-D. C. Batticaloa, 172 (Special)

Co-operative Societies Ordinance-Cancellation, of registration of Co-operative Society- Order made under section 36 (1)-Appointment of liquidator-Point of time when such appointment takes effect-Cap. 107, ss. 36, 37, 39, 40 (1), 45, 46 (2) (t)-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, No. 21 of 1949-Scope of Rule 89 made under s. 37 of Ordinance No. 34 of 1921.

The registration of a Co-operative Society was cancelled by the Registrar Tinder section 36 (1) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance (Cap. 107). No appeal was taken against the order of cancellation. On the day the order of cancellation was made the Registrar appointed the plaintiff to be the liquidator of the Society and also made at the same time an order under section 36 (4) directing that the books, documents, stock-in-trade and other assets of the Society should be immediately handed over to the plaintiff. Thereafter, a dispute between the plaintiff and the Committee of the Society in regard to a certain asset found due from the Committee to the Society was referred by the plaintiff to the Registrar, and the Registrar, purporting to act under Rule 29 of the rules made under section 37 of Ordinance No. 34 of 1921, referred the dispute to an arbitrator. The reference to arbitration was made by the Registrar before the expiry of two months from the date of the order cancelling the registration of the Society.

Held, that, even if the reference to arbitration could be deemed to have been made in the purported exercise of a power under section 45 read with section 40 (1) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance as amended by Act No. 21 of 1949, the reference and the award made thereupon would still be ultra vires inasmuch as in the case of an order made under section 36 cancelling the registration of a Co-operative Society there could be no duly empowered liquidator of the Society until the expiry of at least two months from the date of the order of cancellation.

APPEAL from an order of the District Court, Batticaloa.

C. Shanmuganayagam, for the plaintiff appellant.-The award is not ultra vires as Rule 29 under which the reference was made must necessarily be read in conjunction with the principal Ordinance No. 16 of 1936 (Cap. 107). See Institute of Patent Agents v. Lockwood 1[ (1894) A. Cal 360]. Rule .29 merely prescribes the procedure to be followed in giving effect to the provisions of Cap. 107-section 46 (1) and (2) (t) of Cap. 107. Rule 29 is applicable only in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of Cap. 107-section 52 (2) of Cap. 107; Maxwell on Interpretation, 6th ed., p. 524. Hence reference to arbitration and award must be deemed to be under Rule 29 read with the relevant provisions of Cap. 107, -viz., section 40 (1) (d) and 45 (1) (b). See section 17 of the Interpretation Ordinance; also Canagasabai v. Kondavil Co-operative Stores 2[(1949) 50 N. L. R. 465]

The Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, No. 21 of 1949, is retrospective in regard to section 40 (1) (d), which is declaratory in effect- Attorney-General v. Theobald 1[(1890) Q. B. D. 557]. In the alternative, even if it be considered not retrospective, Act No. 21 of 1949, furnishes a legislative interpretation of the earlier principal Ordinance, Cap. 107, in regard to section 40 (1) (d) (Grill v. General Screw Collier Co. 2[(1866)L.R.I.C.P.611. ]), and the liquidator represents the Society in section 45 (1) (b) of Cap. 107 (Waterhouse v. Jamieson s[(1870) L. R. Sc. & Div. A. C. Vol. 2, p. 29]). Hence section 40 (1) (d) of Cap. 107 must be interpreted in the light of the' later amendment Act.

H. V. Perera, K.C., with C. Renganathan and A. Nagendra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document