Writ Petition No. 2045 of 2011

12th December, 2011

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. AMIT B. BORKAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr. P.S. DANI i/b. Mr. CHETAN G. PATIL

Cases Cited:
Ramchandra K. Pitale Vs. Scientific Cooperative Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & ors., 2009(4) ALL MR 553=2010(1) Mh. L.J. 232 [Para 4,13]
Murlidhar Datoba Nimanka & ors. Vs. Harish Balkrushna Latane & ors., 2003(3) ALL MR 123=2003(4) Mh. L.J. 196 [Para 6]
P & T Central Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Judge, Co-operative Court, Nagpur & ors., 1987 Mh. L.J. 232 [Para 6]
Prem Lala Nahata and Anr. Vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, 2007 ALL SCR 1254=(2007) 2 SCC 551 [Para 6,7,11,12]
A-1 CHS Ltd. Vs. R. Jaikishan & Co. & ors., 2004(4) ALL MR 828 =2005(1) Mh. L.J. 118 [Para 7]

JUDGMENT

JUDMENT :- On 25th April, 2011 notice for final disposal of the Petition at the stage of admission was issued and accordingly I have heard Mr. Borkar Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Dani, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 who has entered appearance. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties.

2. Petitioner is the original disputant in Dispute No. 629 of 2009 filed in the Cooperative Court No. 1 at Kolhapur. According to the Petitioner, the Opponent Nos. 2 to 42 Societies could not have been enrolled as members of the Opponent No. 1 Society and the Resolution No. 2 dated 26/3/2008 passed by the Managing Committee of the Opponent Society is void ab initio. The principal reliefs in the Dispute are a declaration that the Resolution No. 2 dated 26/3/2008 is void ab initio, illegal, ultravirus of the provisions of law of Opponent No.1; declaration that the Resolution No. 2 dated 26/3/2008 is incapable of being implemented and that no rights have accrued in favour of the Opponent Nos. 2 to 42 on the basis of the said resolution and a permanent injunction restraining the Opponent No. 1 from implementing the said resolution and for restraining the Opponent Nos. 2 to 42 from exercising their rights as members of Opponent No. 1.

3. In this Dispute some of the Opponents filed an application for rejection of the dispute under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the Registrar has exclusive jurisdiction to decide as to whether the Opponent Nos. 2 to 42 were entitled to become members of the Opponent No. 1 Society. This application was contested by the Petitioner.

4. By the Judgment and Order dated 21/7/2010 the learned Judge of the Cooperative Court No. II, Kolhapur rejected the Dispute No. 629 of 2009 on the ground that the question of eligibility and non-eligibility of a person to become a member can be decided only by the Registrar under Section 11 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960. It was held that the issue involving dispute as to membership, expulsion and disqualification of the Managing Committee Members was outside the scope of Section 91 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge (C.L.Pangarkar, J) in Ramchandra K. Pitale v/s. Scientific Cooperative Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & ors., 2010(1) Mh. L.J. 232 : [2009(4) ALL MR 553].

5. Aggrieved by the Order of rejection of the Dispute, the Petitioner filed A.O. No. 47 of 2010 in the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appelate Court, Mumbai at Pune Bench, which was also dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 14/7/2011 leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition.

6. Shri Borkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner advanced the following submissions :-

(a) Provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) do not apply to Cooperative Court as Section 94 makes only certain provisions of C.P.C. as referred therein applicable to the dispute under Section 91. He relied on the Judgment of R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J in Murlidhar Datoba Nimanka & ors. v/s. Harish Balkrushna Latane & ors., 2003(4) Mh. L.J. 196 : [2003(3) ALL MR 123] and the Judgment of M.S. Deshpande, J in P & T Central Co-op. Society Ltd. v/s. Judge, Co-operative Court, Nagpur & ors., 1987 Mh. L.J. 232 in support of his first submission.

(b) That there cannot be an implied bar so as to exercise the power of summary rejection of the dispute. The bar contemplated by Order 7 Rule 11(d) has to be an express bar. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Lala Nahata and Anr. v/s. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, (2007) 2 SCC 551 : [2007 ALL SCR 1254] and particularly paragraphs - 16 and 17 thereof.

(c) That the provisions of Section 11, 22 or 23 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960 have absolutely no application.

(d) That the Petitioner was complaining about violation of bye laws of Respondent No. 1 Society and there was no dispute as to the nature of business of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 42 and, hence, Section 11 has no application.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Dani, appearing for the contesting Respondent No.1 advanced following submissions.

(a) Relying on the notification dated 11/12/2003 issued by the High Court under the Provisions of Article 227 and 235 of the Constitution of India which is referred to in paragraph-9.2 of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge (D.B. Bhosale, J) in A-1 CHS Ltd. v/s. R. Jaikishan & Co. & ors., 2005(1) Mh. L.J. 118 : [2004(4) ALL MR 828] it was submitted that since the provisions of Civil Manual were made applicable, rule 8 thereof which contemplates examination of plaint and rejection of the plaint would make the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code applicable to Cooperative Courts and the Cooperative Courts have therefore power to reject the plaint.

(b) Relying on the proviso to Section 91 it was submitted that all matters which are required to be decided by the Registrar under the Act are excluded from the purview of Section 91 of the Act and, therefore, all such matters cannot be termed as dispute. The dispute regarding membership and the nature of business carried on by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 42 while being admitted as members of the Respondent No.1 is therefore exclusively covered by section 11 and, hence, by necessary implication jurisdiction of the Cooperative Courts was barred under section 91.

(c) That Section 11 is very widely worded and the question whether a person is or is not engaged in or carrying on any profession, business or employment has to be decided under Section 11 and, by necessary corollary the said questions are excluded from the purview of a dispute under Section 91.

(d) It was submitted that the law cannot accept a position where the Registrar and Court are both empowered to decide one and the same issue. Relying on Section 22(1A) of the Act it was submitted that it was the legislative intent that any question of disqualification has to be decided by Registrar and, therefore, jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court was barred.

(e) It was alternatively submitted by relying on the observations in paragraph-19 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Lala Nahta, [2007 ALL SCR 1254] (supra) that even if this Court comes to a conclusion that all the prayers in the dispute cannot be entertained by the Co-operative Court, this Court should order separate trial of such matters as are held to be within the purview of Section 91 and direct deletion of the other reliefs.

8. In rejoinder Mr. Borkar submitted that the question as to whether the Respondent Nos. 2 to 42 Societies are carrying on business as labour contractors Societies or not is not the subject matter of the dispute but the subject matter of the dispute is whether the Respondent Nos. 2 to 42 Societies were eligible for being admitted as members of the Respondent No.1 since, admittedly, the Respondent Nos. 2 to 42 Societies are industrial producers Societies. He therefore submitted that section 11 has no application to the facts of this case.

9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is settled law that while considering the prayer for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is concerned, only averments in the plaint have to be looked into and no other material can be looked into by the Court. The Plaintiff/Disputant has averred that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 42 Societies are not labour contract cooperative societies but they have been registered as industrial producers cooperative societies. In fact, for deciding this contention of the Petitioner, Section 11 will have no application. Mr. Borkar is therefore justified in his contention that the provisions of Section 11 do not have any application to the facts of this case. To my mind therefore Section 11 has no application to the facts of the case. Section 22(1A) which has been relied upon by Mr. Dani also does not have any application for the simple reason that the Petitioner Plaintiff disputant has not averred about any separate order passed by the State Government under that section. Section 23 also does not have any application for the simple reason that it is not a case of either the disputant or the Respondent that any of the Respondents has not been admitted as member of the Respondent No.1 Society. Thus, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have clearly committed error on the face of record by holding that the jurisdiction of Cooperative Court has been barred by provisions of Section 11, 22 and 23.

10. Once this view is taken, question whether the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code apply to the Cooperative Court or not; which according to Mr. Borkar do not apply and which according to Mr. Dani do apply; need not be gone into. It is no doubt true that 2 learned Judges (R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J and M.S. Deshpande, J) have clearly held that the Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code and Order 1 Rule 10 are not applicable to the Cooperative Courts. However, since the Cooperative Court is expected to hear and decide the suit in summary manner the question whether the Order 7 Rule 11 (d) or a power akin thereto would enable the Cooperative Court to reject the dispute only on the basis of the averments in the plaint in the dispute is a matter which is debatable issue. Since I have held that Section 11, 22 and 23 have no application to the facts of the case, it is not necessary to go into that aspect.

11. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Borkar the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Lala Nahata, [2007 ALL SCR 1254] (supra) has observed in paragraph-16 that for summary rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the Court must come to a conclusion that from the statement of the Plaintiff in the Plaint itself, the suit is barred by some law. I have carefully read the entire dispute and it is impossible to hold that from the pleadings or the averments in the plaint, the suit can be held to be barred by any law.

12. Hence applying the ratio of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Lala Nahata, [2007 ALL SCR 1254] (supra), the conclusion is inevitable that the dispute could not have been dismissed by the Trial Court.

13. It is now necessary to deal with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in Ramchandra K. Pitale, [2009(4) ALL MR 553] (supra). Paragraph 12 of the said Judgment reads thus:

"12. The next aspect that needs consideration is whether the question as to the dispute about membership could have been decided by the Co-operative Court. The Society has certainly disputed the status of the petitioner as a member. The question as to whether a disputant is or is not a member cannot be entertained by the Co-operative Court by virtue of the provisions contained in section 23 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The jurisdiction exclusively lies with the Registrar. In the circumstances, the petitioner ought to have first got determined the status as a member."

A bare look at the provisions of Section 91 of the M.C.S Act, 1960 will clearly indicate that a person claiming to be a member of a society can certainly file dispute against the society under section 91. The learned Single Judge however has proceeded on the basis that such a person must first get his right as member established by moving the Registrar and only thereafter he can file a dispute. In my opinion, the said Judgment and observation in paragraph-12 clearly overlook the provisions of Section 91 and hence do not constitute a binding precedent.

14. The submission of Mr. Dani that the dispute in present case falls within the exception carved out by the proviso to section 91 also does not impress me. A careful look at the proviso would indicate that only refusal of admission to membership by a society to any person qualified therefor is excluded from the definition of the dispute. In the present case, the Petitioner is not raising any question in that regard and, in the present case, it is not the case where membership has been refused. The submission of Mr. Dani has therefore no substance.

15. As an outcome of the aforesaid discussion, the Petition deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned Judgment and Order dated 21/7/2010 passed by the learned Judge in Dispute bearing S.C.C.K No. 629 of 2009 thereby rejecting the said dispute under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as also the impugned Judgment and Order dated 14/1/2011 passed by the learned In-charge Member (Pune Bench), Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai in A.O. No. 47/2010 being Exh. D and Exh. E respectively to this Writ Petition are quashed and set aside and the Dispute bearing S.C.C.K. No. 629 of 2009 is restored to file and shall be heard in accordance with law. Hearing of the Dispute is expedited.

16. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.