Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
The suit's maintainability can also depend on whether the jurisdictional and procedural requirements, including notice and waiting period, are fulfilled ["Jijamata Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. VS Sukhedeo Rambhau Fulzade - Bombay"].
Analysis and conclusion:
References:["NANDED MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NANDED THR.COMMISSIONER vs JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD PUNE AND ANR - Bombay"]["Jijamata Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. VS Sukhedeo Rambhau Fulzade - Bombay"]["Gajanan Eknath Sonankar VS Shegaon Shri Agrasen CoOp. Credit Society Ltd - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1596"]
Filing a lawsuit against an officer of a cooperative society can be tricky, especially in Maharashtra where the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) imposes specific procedural hurdles. Many wonder: suit against officer of cooperative society is barred under Sec 164? The short answer is no, not inherently—but strict compliance with notice requirements is key if the suit touches the society's business. This blog breaks down the law, court interpretations, and practical tips to help you navigate this.
Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 164 of the MCS Act states: No suit shall be instituted against a society, or any of its officers, in respect of any act touching the business of the society, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar...Gajanan Eknath Sonankar VS Shegaon Shri Agrasen CoOp. Credit Society Ltd - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1596.
The core purpose? To alert the Registrar, society, or officers of the claim, giving them time to settle or respond, thus avoiding unnecessary court battles. The notice must detail the cause of action, plaintiff's info, and relief sought, delivered to the Registrar's office.
Failure to issue or serve this notice? The suit becomes not maintainable, and courts can reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)Gajanan Eknath Sonankar VS Shegaon Shri Agrasen CoOp. Credit Society Ltd - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1596Vardhaman Developers Limited VS Andheri Krupa Prasad Co-operative Housing Society Limited - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1833.
Courts have ruled consistently: If the suit touches the business of the society (e.g., redevelopment, demolition declarations), prior notice is mandatory Vardhaman Developers Limited VS Andheri Krupa Prasad Co-operative Housing Society Limited - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1833. In one case, the court observed: The suit for declaration for demolition and redevelopment, which touches the business of the society, cannot be maintained without compliance of Section 164.Vardhaman Developers Limited VS Andheri Krupa Prasad Co-operative Housing Society Limited - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1833.
Similarly, The suit is not maintainable since it is an admitted position that no notice under Section 164 was served.Gajanan Eknath Sonankar VS Shegaon Shri Agrasen CoOp. Credit Society Ltd - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1596. Non-compliance leads to outright rejection, as seen in multiple rulings Suprabhat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & another VS Span Builders & another - 2002 0 Supreme(Bom) 311.
The bar isn't absolute. Notice can be waived explicitly or impliedly through conduct:- Participating in proceedings without objection.- Delaying objection after knowing the dispute.- Proceeding with the case post-knowledge.
Courts acknowledge this: If the society or officers engage without raising the issue, it may amount to waiver Gajanan Eknath Sonankar VS Shegaon Shri Agrasen CoOp. Credit Society Ltd - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1596. In another instance, If the Government has waived the objection, there is no reason why the Society should claim a rejection of plaint on the ground that it is barred by law under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC.Raigad Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. VS Suman Eknath Gaike - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1680.
Even urgency (e.g., emerging circumstances after 45 days) might not override waiver if conduct implies acceptance Raigad Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. VS Suman Eknath Gaike - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1680.
Not all suits trigger Section 164. If the act complained of does not touch the society's business, notice isn't required Vardhman Developers Ltd. VS Borla Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 2161. For example:- Redevelopment disputes deemed outside core business may proceed without notice Vardhman Developers Ltd. VS Borla Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 2161.- does not pertain to the business of the society and as the suit is not touching the business of the society the suit is... absence of a notice being served on the petitioner as is mandate by section 164THE SECRETARY - M/S. GAUTAM SINDHU CHS LTD vs THANA ACCHALGACCHA JAIN SANGH AND ORS.
In property disputes like deemed conveyance under Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), courts assess if Section 164 applies alongside Section 11 of MOFA, often upholding injunctions where prima facie cases exist despite notice debates.
Judicial trends reinforce these principles:- Cooperative Banks: Protection under Section 164 doesn't extend if the entity isn't a true cooperative society. bank is not a cooperative society and, therefore, protection conferred by Section 164 is not available to a cooperative bank.NANDED MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NANDED THR.COMMISSIONER vs JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD PUNE AND ANR.- Jurisdictional Bars: Suits against societies may face additional hurdles like Section 91 or 163 MCS Act, but notice remains pivotal Kumar Builder VS Kumar City Residents Co-operative Housing Society Ltd - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 622.- Other Acts: Analogous provisions in U.P. Municipalities Act or Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act (Section 156) show civil courts retain jurisdiction for civil nature suits unless explicitly barred Srirangam Cooperative Building Society Limited VS N. Srinivasan - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 3544Nagar Mahapalika VS Shiva Prasad - 1965 Supreme(All) 406.- Maintainability Despite No Notice: In recovery suits, courts have held suits maintainable even without notice under certain MCS Act provisions Rameshchandra Ramklshan Sarda VS Shri. Shankarrao Chavan - 2009 Supreme(Bom) 346.
These cases highlight that context matters—business-related acts demand notice, but waivers or non-business issues open doors.
To avoid dismissal:- Always Issue Notice: For business-touching suits, serve properly and wait two months Gajanan Eknath Sonankar VS Shegaon Shri Agrasen CoOp. Credit Society Ltd - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1596.- Check Scope: Assess if the act falls under business of the society—seek precedents like redevelopment Vardhman Developers Ltd. VS Borla Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 2161.- Monitor Conduct: If defendants participate without objection, argue waiver Raigad Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. VS Suman Eknath Gaike - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1680.- Alternative Forums: Consider cooperative dispute resolution under Section 91 MCS Act if applicable SHRI MITHAILAL SINGH AND OTHERS vs SMT. MADHAVI JEETPRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS.- Legal Consultation: When in doubt, get advice—especially for hybrid issues like MOFA and MCS Act overlaps.
Suits against cooperative society officers under Section 164 are generally not barred if proper notice is given for business-related acts, or if waived/dispensed with. Non-compliance risks rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d), but exceptions abound Vardhaman Developers Limited VS Andheri Krupa Prasad Co-operative Housing Society Limited - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1833Gajanan Eknath Sonankar VS Shegaon Shri Agrasen CoOp. Credit Society Ltd - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1596.
Key Takeaways:- Notice mandatory for society business acts.- Waiver possible via conduct.- Non-business acts exempt.- Courts prioritize substance but enforce procedure strictly.
Stay informed, comply diligently, and litigate smartly. For tailored guidance, reach out to a legal expert.
References:1. Gajanan Eknath Sonankar VS Shegaon Shri Agrasen CoOp. Credit Society Ltd - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1596 – Core on notice necessity.2. Vardhaman Developers Limited VS Andheri Krupa Prasad Co-operative Housing Society Limited - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1833 – Rejection for non-compliance.3. Vardhman Developers Ltd. VS Borla Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 2161 – Non-business exception.4. Raigad Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. VS Suman Eknath Gaike - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1680 – Waiver examples.
#CoopSocietyLaw, #Sec164MCSAct, #MaharashtraLaw
barred by territorial jurisdiction ? ... bank is not a cooperative society and, therefore, protection conferred by Section 164 is not available to a cooperative bank. ... If a society is not a cooperative society, it cannot be a cooperative bank. ... is maintainable for want of notice U/sec. 164 of Maharashtra thereof, cease to apply to a cooperative socie....
The mandatory requirements of Section 164 of the said Act serves policy of law and a public purpose to protect Cooperative Societies from expensive; avoidable and lengthy litigation. ... State of Bihar and others wherein it has been held that a suit against the Government or a public officer to which the requirement of a prior notice under sec.80, CPC is attracted cannot be validly instituted until the expiration of the period of two months next after the notice in writing concerned ... The plaintiff ha....
The act of the society in mortgaging the suit property which was already sold to the appellant who was not even a member of the society cannot fall in the definition of Sec. 164 of the Act. ... Section 164 of the MCS Act reads thus: ... “Sec. 164 : Notice necessary in suits: ... No suit shall be instituted against a society, or any of its officers, in respect of any act touching the business of the soci....
. 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was not raised by the present review petitioner the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. ... The suit filed by the present respondent / Original of this Court U/Sec. 114 read with Order 47 of Civil Shri Patil, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the suit
to the Registrar and it is barred by law. ... No. 2822/18, Plaintiff had issued notice to defendant on 7-8-2018 u/sec. 164 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. Period of 45 days is over the issuance of said notice. However, emerging circumstances are there which shows urgency in the matter. ... If the Government has waived the objection, there is no reason why the Society should claim a rejection of plaint on the ground that it is barred by law under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC. ... Sect....
It was held that a suit for refund of tax is not barred by any express enactment or by necessary implication arising out of the provisions of Section 153 (c) , 160 or 164 of the Act. ... Sub-sec. (1) of Section 164 of that Act is identical to Section 226 of the Adhiniyam quoted above. ... The right to enforce that claim was a right of a civil nature and could be enforced in a civil suit unless the suit was barred by some provision. ... Sec#....
One of the questions raised in the appeal is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit or whether the jurisdiction of the Court was barred by Sec. 164 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The court below expressed the view that the suit was cognizable by the civil court. ... He had failed to do so and the assessment could not be questioned by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 164 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entert....
Court had jurisdiction and that the mandatory notice under Sec. 164 of the Co-op. ... In that suit, an application under Sec.9A read with Sec.151 of the C.P.C. was filed by some of the defendants challenging jurisdiction ... Court and under sub-sec. (3), the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded. ... and it is between the Society and its member or the surety of a member or a past member, the dispute will lie before the Co-op. ... Society#HL....
does not pertain to the business of the society and as the suit is not touching the business of the society the suit is court has held that no notice under sec. 164 of Maharashtra Co- constructed a structure and the members of the society are in absence of a notice being served on the petitioner as is mandate by section 164
P. therefore filed a suit against the appellant for the recovery of the tax in arrears after the action of the State to recover the amount under sec 32 was held to be time barred. ... R. 1960 BOMBAY 467 where the Court was concerned with a similar question of competency of suit for recovery of octroi duty under sec. 164 of the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901we read sec. 164 as under: in lieu of proceeding by distress and sale or in case of failure....
The defendant no 5 being a cooperative society the suit is barred by the provisions of section 163(1) (b) read with section 91(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 1960. The suit against the municipal Corporation is not competent in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act ('MRTP Act' for short) and the Development Control rules ( DC Rules).
3. Defendant filed a written statement pleading, inter alia, that the plaintiff-firm is not registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The suit is barred under Sec.69 of the Partnership Act.
OPD 7. Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Section 90 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1972? 7. Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Section 90 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1972? OPD 7. Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Section 90 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1972? OPP 6. Whether the defendant No.1 has not received token money of Rs.10.00 lacs from the plaintiff and, if so, effect thereof? Since Issues no.4&5 have been decided against the plaintiff, the question of the plaintiff being ....
An issue as to the jurisdiction of the trial (Civil) Court also has been framed. 3. The revision Petitioner/Cooperative Society filed written statement, contested the suit, inter-alia, it had also contended that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act.
3. The defendant/respondent Society filed written statement at Exh.32 and amongst other contentions, it objected to the tenability of the suit stating that since the defendant is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the suit without notice under Section 164 of the said Act is barred.
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
