Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In the meantime, the Respondent Society started recovery proceedings against the Petitioner under section 101 of the MCS Act. The concerned Dy. Registrar held on 01/08/2014 that since the dispute about recovery is complicated requiring detailed examination /cross-examination of concerned persons, dispute must be filed under section 91 of the MCS Act. The action under section 101 was thus rejected.

4. The dispute continued anyway, which again reached the concerned Deputy Registrar about maintenance charges and garbage dumping in lobby. Finally by order dated 16/09/2016, the Dy. Registrar disposed of the same, holding that complete action has been already taken under earlier orders, which have reached upto the Minister for Co-operation; despite that the Petitioner has again approached the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar noted that parties have been already relegated to file necessary dispute under section 91 of the MCS Act. It was further noted that grievance about registration of society can not be entertained by Dy. Registrar and Petitioner can adopt appropriate proceedings.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Satpute for the Respondent- Society, pointed out that the maintenance and outgoing charges are being levied as per resolutions passed by the Society and they are in accordance with law. He submits that the entire dispute about maintenance charges is pending before the Co-operative Court at Mumbai in a substantive dispute under section 91 of the MCS Act. He further pointed out that under communication dated 31/05/2012, the Petitioner has already been informed that the Society has already given necessary adjustmens of additional amount charged to the Petitioner, alongwith interest.

8. It is not disputed that substantive dispute about maintenance and

18.WP.12711.2017-B C.doc other charges as well legality and validity of concerned resolution/s forming basis thereof, is already under consideration before the court of competent jurisdiction in the form of dispute under section 91 of the MCS Act. As expected in the dispute like this, there seems to be conflicting versions about payment of maintenance dues by the Petitioner. Be that as may.

9. Fact cannot be denied of due course of law has been followed on the complaints of the Petitioner in the form of order of penalty being passed against concerned Chairman and Secretary, who in default have been disqualified. The grievance about maintenance amount and validity of the resolution/s cannot be considered by the Deputy Registrar in the complaint, as filed, and it is rightly held by the authority that proper course is to file dispute under section 91.

10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is not necessary to enter into the legal submission about availability of parallel jurisdiction under section 154 of the MCS Act. Suffice it to observe that the proceedings under section 91 as filed by the Petitioner and opposed by the Respondent-Society, shall be decided in accordance with law.