Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act does not generally bar the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums to entertain complaints related to services or transactions involving cooperative societies. The Karnataka State Commission explicitly held that Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act does not bar jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums ["
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
"]. Similarly, other judgments have affirmed that consumer complaints concerning deficiency of service or related grievances are maintainable despite the existence of Section 70, as long as the dispute involves service or consumer rights, not purely statutory or jurisdictional issues under the Co-operative Societies Act ["KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
"], ["Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. VS Sharada Venkataramaiah - Consumer
"], ["TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. VS WILSON PETERS - Consumer (1995)
"].The key insight from multiple rulings is that while Section 70(1)(d) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for disputes arising in respect of the business of the Co-operative Society, this does not preclude consumers from approaching Consumer Forums for grievances related to deficiency of service, management, or other consumer-related issues. The courts have clarified that such complaint is as a rule maintainable and that the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy ["
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
"], ["Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. VS Sharada Venkataramaiah - Consumer
"], ["TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. VS WILSON PETERS - Consumer (1995)
"].Several judgments distinguish between disputes that are purely statutory or jurisdictional under the Co-operative Societies Act and those involving consumer rights. For instance, it was held that dispute in respect of the business of the Co-op. Society arising between the society and its members falls under Section 70, but if a complaint relates to deficiency of service or other consumer grievances, the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction ["
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
"], ["Consumer & Citizens Forum VS Karnataka Power Corporation - Consumer
"].The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently emphasized that the bar under Section 70 does not extend to complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, especially when the dispute involves deficiency of service, negligence, or consumer rights. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are supplementary, and remedies under it are available in addition to statutory remedies under the Co-operative Societies Act ["
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
"], ["HANUMAN SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. VS ANANDI CHAUDHARI - Consumer
"], ["KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY & LTD. vs RAGHU V. - Consumer National"].In conclusion, a complaint before a consumer forum is maintainable despite Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, provided the dispute pertains to deficiency in service or consumer rights, and is not solely a statutory or jurisdictional issue under the Co-operative Societies Act ["
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
"], ["Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. VS Sharada Venkataramaiah - Consumer
"], ["TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. VS WILSON PETERS - Consumer (1995)
"].References:- ["
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
"]- ["Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. VS Sharada Venkataramaiah - Consumer
"]- ["TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. VS WILSON PETERS - Consumer (1995)
"]- ["Consumer & Citizens Forum VS Karnataka Power Corporation - Consumer
"]- ["HANUMAN SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. VS ANANDI CHAUDHARI - Consumer
"]- ["KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY & LTD. vs RAGHU V. - Consumer National"]
In the realm of consumer rights and co-operative societies, a common dilemma arises: whether a complaint before a consumer forum is maintainable in view of the bar under . Co-operative societies play a vital role in housing, banking, and other services in India, but disputes between members and societies often lead to jurisdictional tug-of-war between specialized forums and consumer courts. This blog explores the legal position, drawing from key statutes, judgments, and analyses to clarify when consumer forums retain jurisdiction despite the apparent bar.
Note: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
, centralizes dispute resolution for co-operative societies. It mandates that disputes touching the constitution, management, or business of the society be referred to the , explicitly barring courts from entertaining such matters. 1992 0 Supreme(SC) 465 This provision aims to streamline internal society disputes, covering areas like:
The Act further clarifies that its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of other laws, suggesting no outright ouster of parallel remedies. 1992 0 Supreme(SC) 465
However, this bar does not extend universally. Claims involving or injury/loss due to —hallmarks of consumer disputes—fall outside its strict scope, preserving access to consumer forums under the (now 2019).
The Consumer Protection Act empowers forums to address complaints of , , and . Importantly, Section 3 states that its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law.
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
This reinforces that consumer remedies coexist with society-specific laws.Courts have consistently held that Section 70 does not oust consumer forum jurisdiction for service-related grievances. For instance, disputes alleging or poor service by a co-operative society can proceed before .
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. VS WILSON PETERS - Consumer (1995)
Several judgments underscore this position:
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. VS WILSON PETERS - Consumer (1995)
The in one case opined: this section does not bar the complainant to maintain the present complaint, as according to the , the relief available to a consumer under the is an additional remedy besides those which may be available to him under...
MANAGING COMMITTEE, KAILASH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. VS JAGJIT KUMARI
While Karnataka-specific rulings favor maintainability for consumer claims, other sources highlight nuances, emphasizing the nature of the dispute:
MANAGING COMMITTEE, KAILASH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. VS JAGJIT KUMARI
Conversely, supportive precedents exist:
SRI HANUMAN SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. VS ANANDI CHAUDHARI
M. M. Ravi Shankar VS Vishwabharathi House Building, Co-operative Society Ltd. , Represented by its President
These cases illustrate a judicial trend: service deficiencies (e.g., possession delays due to , medical errors) are consumer matters; pure internal governance disputes are not.
Consumer forums' jurisdiction is not absolute:
S. SUNIL KUMAR VS REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK
In Lalitha & Ors., did not exclude consumer forums, a principle echoed in Karnataka contexts. 2023 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1232
To navigate this:
SRI HANUMAN SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. VS ANANDI CHAUDHARI
TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. VS WILSON PETERS - Consumer (1995)
Generally, a complaint before a consumer forum is maintainable despite Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act if it involves or , as these are not ousted by the Act's bar.
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
Courts prioritize consumer protections as additional remedies, but pure society management disputes remain with the Registrar. 1992 0 Supreme(SC) 465This balance protects members as consumers while preserving specialized oversight. Stay informed, document diligently, and approach the right forum to safeguard your rights.
References:- 1992 0 Supreme(SC) 465,
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR - Consumer (1999)
,TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. VS WILSON PETERS - Consumer (1995)
,MANAGING COMMITTEE, KAILASH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. VS JAGJIT KUMARI
,SRI HANUMAN SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. VS ANANDI CHAUDHARI
,, 1999 0 Supreme(AP) 918,
M. M. Ravi Shankar VS Vishwabharathi House Building, Co-operative Society Ltd. , Represented by its President
, 2023 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1232 #ConsumerForum #CoopSocietiesAct #LegalRights
The question raised was whether Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act bars jurisdiction of Consumer Forums. ... Karnataka State Commission has decided this question in favour of the complainant holding that Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act does not bar jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums. ... in performanc....
Act confers exclusive jurisdiction with reference to the dispute relating to Section 70(1) of the K.C.S. ... Act, and under Section 70(1)(d) such dispute shall have to be referred to the Registrar for decision and that no court shall have ... 70 of K.C.S. ... If that be so, the question for consideration is as to whether the forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short 'The Act') has the juri....
The District Forum was of the opinion that this section does not bar the complainant to maintain the present complaint, as according to the District Forum, the relief available to a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional remedy besides those which may be available to him under ... The State Commission, Karnataka in this judgment has considered the judgments of other State Commissions and also the scope of Section#....
Cooperative Societies Act , 1964 - Section 76 - Section 62 - Section 61 - Section 70 - Section 121 - Consumers Protection Act, 1986 ... of the bar contained under Section 121 of the Act it has to be held that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition filed by the 2nd respondent claiming damages. ... the Consumer Forum is not maintainable and the learned District #H....
70 - Complainant about neither allotment of housing site nor refund by OP/appellant - Allowed by DF - Appeal against - Whether Section ... 70 of Kar. ... Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 3 - Act, not in derogation of any other law - Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 -Section ... The opposite parties nextly averred that the complaint was untenable under the provisions of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies#HL_E....
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. following points are to be decided: ... (i) Whether the complaint is time-barred by limitation? ... (ii) Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of Section 70 of the U.P. ... Anandi Chaudhari under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) against judgments and orders dated 22.2.1996 p....
... Held: Under the provisions of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-op. ... 70 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act - Loss or injury caused on account of negligence and deficiency in performance of service ... Collected money from seven complainants for allotting sites - Opposite party contending that complaint untenable as per provisions of Section ... It held that even though the complaint facts within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Society Court under section ....
SOCIETIES - MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - JURISDICTION - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1969 - SECTION 69(1) - SECTION ... 70(1)(B) - INTERPRETATION - DISPUTE - BUSINESS - MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 69(1) - REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE ... Learned Counsel for the appellant urged, the view taken by the District Forum that the complaint is not maintainable before it in view of Section 69(1) of Kerala Co-#HL_STA....
Lalitha & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 305 in which it has been held that Section 90 of Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act does not exclude the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ... As per Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, the dispute is triable by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the #HL....
Disputes Redressal Forum, itself was not maintainable, in view of the fact that the petitioner had invoked the provisions of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and therefore, the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum should not have been entertained. ... of Co-operative Societies. ... p....
(b) whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure? ; and The issue nos.7, 8 and 9 were respectively to the following effect : (c) whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC?” “(a) whether the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965?;
It is contended that in view of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the C.P. Act. 5. The defence set up by the OPs is that the complainant kept quiet for a long period of 14 years. It was averred that the OPs cannot allot or register site of any dimension to anybody except taking the norms ordered in the government Notification dated 04.10.2007 effecting bulk allotment. The said order has to be implemented by the BDA not only by fixing the rate of cost of amount, but also formulating the release o....
But, we have to note that as stated above in para 8 of this order, the Hon. The complainant and the Counsel for the opposite party advanced oral arguments. The main contention of the complainant is that the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum in view of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, which reads: “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”
First of all this complaint itself is maintainable before the Consumer Fora as per the Section 69, of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 2004. We heard in detail the appellant and perused the entire evidence available in the case records and we are seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is strictly as per the provisions of law and evidence hence it is legally sustainable. In other words, as per this section no Civil Court, any Tribunal or any public authority has the jurisdiction to entertain these disputes. In a decision, Enathu Service Co-operative Bank v. CD....
The forum created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, not being either a Civil or Revenue Court, Section 163 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, does not create a bar for entertaining a dispute / complaint by the Consumer Forum. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering Works (supra), the argument advanced by the petitioners, based on applicability of provisions of Section 163 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Courts, cannot be accepted. The Division Bench of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
