Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Dadamchand Lunaji Through Deceased ... vs Vipanan Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit on 28 August, 2017
M.A. No.1314/2017
(M/s Dadamchand Lunaji vs. Vipanan and others)
28.08.2017
Shri D.S. Kale, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal under Order 43 Rule-1 (a) of CPC is directed against the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by I Additional District Judge, Jhabua in Civil Suit No.2-B/2016 consequent upon the remand order passed by this Court in M.A. Nos.3376/2007, 3377/2007, 702/2010 & 703/2010 vide the order dated 31.03.2016, wherein a Division Bench of this Court in para 14 observed as under:
14. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Bhanushali Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Mangilal & Ors [2015 (III) MPJR (SC) 66], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the dispute must be between parties who have had a series of transactions, each one constituting a business transaction in order that the provisions of Section 64 are attracted and a dispute arising out of any such transaction brought within its purview, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the learned trial Court to consider the question afresh and decide it in the light of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Bhanushali Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Mangilal & Ors. (supra).
The trial Court has reconsidered the matter on two issues, viz, jurisdiction and the State Government; a necessary party. The trial Court found that the State Government is a necessary party as regards the jurisdiction, the trial Court following the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhanushali Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Mangilal & Ors 2015 (III) MPJF (SC) 66. has concluded that in the instant case, M.A. No.1314/2017 (M/s Dadamchand Lunaji vs. Vipanan and others) admittedly, the appellant has purchased 30 cheques from agriculturists, who had business dealings with the society. Accordingly, in terms of Section 64 (1)(c) of the M.P. Co- operative Societies Act 1960 (for short, the Act of 1960), the dispute between the appellant and the society was found to be "touching the business of the society" and, therefore, dispute arising from such transaction was found to be amenable to 'dispute redressal forum' as contemplated under Section 64 of the Act of 1960.
Learned counsel for the appellant taking exception to the impugned order contends that the trial Court has not understood and applied the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhanushali Housing Cooperative Society Ltd.(supra) in right perspective as the trial Court ought to have addressed the issue whether the agriculturists from whom the appellant had purchased the cheques numbering 30 had singular or multiple transaction with the society. That having not been done, the trial Court was not justified having returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.
Heard.
Before adverting to the singular contention advanced, it is apposite to quote Section 64 (1) (c) of the Act.
"64 Disputes:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, [any dispute touching the constitution, management or business, or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar] by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties there to are among the following:-
(a) ..............
(b) ............. M.A. No.1314/2017
(M/s Dadamchand Lunaji vs. Vipanan and others)
(c) a person other than a member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions and any person claiming through such a person.
A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision suggests that a person other than a member of the society who has or had business transaction or any person claiming through such a person shall be a party for raising the dispute before the statutory forum under Section 64 of the Act.
Admittedly, the appellant is in the business of advancement of loan to agriculturists being a commission agent. In pursuance of the said business, the appellant had purchased 30 cheques from agriculturists for realization of the amount against the society. Such course of business activity, by no stretch of imagination can be construed as a singular transaction in terms of the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhanushali Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra). Hence the findings of the trial Court that the appellant is one of the parties to the dispute as contemplated under Section 64(1)(c) of the Act, 1960 cannot be faulted with.
Accordingly, the appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(Rohit Arya) Judge JYOTI