Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Undisputedly, the petitioner had placed orders for the supply of gas appliances, machineries from the respondent which was dealing with such products. An account was maintained by the petitioner. Certain amounts have been paid to the respondent by the petitioner society including an amount of Rs.75000/- on 15.1.1984. Strangely, the Cooperative Court has found that because some arrears or dues had not been paid by the petitioner, the respondent being a creditor of the Petitioner society and, therefore, had the right to file an application under section 91 of the MCS Act. Unless the dues payable to the creditor of the society are quantified, the creditor of the society cannot file a dispute to recover that amount from the society. The dues are not admitted by the petitioner society. In fact, a running account was maintained by the society which was required to be reconciled at the foot of the account. This admittedly had not been done by the parties nor was any decree passed by any Civil Court holding that the petitioner was liable to pay any amount to the respondent. In such circumstances, it is impossible to accept the findings of both the Cooperative Court and the appellate Court that the dispute is maintainable under the MCS Act. Apart from this, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent does not touch the business of the society as contemplated u/s 91 but was a money claim made against the society. The Respondent was admittedly not a member of the Petitioner society. The words "business of the society" would have to mean the day to day management and administration of the society. In my opinion, therefore, both the Courts have grossly erred in deciding that the Cooperative Court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.