Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7 The gist of the reasoning of the Trial Court as can be seen from the impugned order is that there is a relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.2 to 9 who are its members, and that the subject matter of the suit i.e. flat open space and office premises therefore touches directly to the lgc 8 of 14 wp-10498.13 business of the Society and the same would therefore come within the mischief of Section 91 of the MCS Act. The Trial Court therefore seems to be swayed by the fact that the Defendant Nos.2 to 9 are the members of the Society and therefore reliefs sought against the said members in respect of the garages and office premises touches the business of the Society and hence the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act would have to be invoked. This is in so far as the jurisdictional aspect is concerned based on the objection raised by the Defendants on the touchstone of Section 91 of the MCS Act. In so far as limitation is concerned, the Trial Court held that the suit as filed is within limitation. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents fairly conceded that they are not aggrieved by the said finding of the Trial Court on limitation and therefore have not filed any cross Petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court.

11 It is required to be noted that for the jurisdiction under Section 91 of the MCS Act to be invoked the subject matter has to be one which is mentioned in Section 91, and that the parties have also to be one or the other of the parties enumerated in the said provision. In my view the Trial Court has proceeded on a wrong premise in adjudicating the said issue. At this stage a useful reference could be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in Maragret Almeida's case (supra) and Marine Times Publications Pvt.

The suits were filed in this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court held the suits as maintainable. On the matter being carried in Appeal, the Division Bench held that since what is principally challenged is the Resolution of the General Body, the suits were not maintainable and that the jurisdiction under Section 91 the MCS Act would have to be invoked. The Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Division and held that the Respondents 22 and 23 who were the developers, could not be proceeded under Section 91 and therefore the suits filed by the members were maintainable.

12 The Apex Court in the judgment in Maragret Almeida's case has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Marine Times Publications (P) Ltd's case (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that before a dispute can be referred to a Cooperative Court under the provisions of Section 91(1) of the MCS Act, it is not only essential that the dispute should be of a kind described in sub-section (1) of Section 91, but it is also essential that the parties to the said dispute must belong to any of the categories specified in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of the said Section. In both the cases the disputes/suits were filed wherein the parties claimed reliefs against the third parties who were not members. In my view, the judgments (supra) of the Apex Court would apply on all fours to the facts of the present case as in the present case the Petitioner lgc 13 of 14 wp-10498.13 i.e. the Society is claiming reliefs against the Respondent No.1 who is the developer i.e. enforcing its obligations under MOFA, though the said reliefs may be touching the property of the Society, the Respondent No.1 is not a party which is covered by clauses (a) to (e) of Section 91and the reliefs claimed are revolving around the obligations of the Respondent No.1 under another statute namely the MOFA, and therefore the proceedings would have to be filed against the Respondent No.1 in a Civil Court. In so far as the relief sought against the members of the Society are concerned, it is by way of prayer clause (c). It is for the concerned Court to decide whether the said relief can be granted to the Plaintiff by a Civil Court. However, that is not a ground on which the jurisdictional issue can be decided when the suit in essence has been filed against the Respondent No.1 who is the developer. The impugned order therefore suffers from an error of jurisdiction committed by the Trial Court, and the same is required to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. It is accordingly held that the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in question. The above Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute with parties to bear their respective costs of the Petition. Needless to state that the suit in question would be tried on its own merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that the contentions of the parties on merits are kept open for being urged before the Trial Court.