Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. On issue of limitation, the Trial Court held that the share certificate on and from 25th December, 2005 stands exclusively in name of Respondent No 2 and there is an admitted family arrangement. The dispute was not filed within three years from 25 th December, 2005 and is barred by limitation.

8. On the issue of maintainability, the Trial Court held that differing stands are taken by Disputant in different proceedings and there is not a single document produced to show the Disputant's right title and interest in the suit premises and thus the dispute is not maintainable under Section 91 of MCS Act.

(iv) a refusal or failure by a member, past member or a nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member, to deliver possession to a society of land or any other asset resumed by it for breach of condition as the assignment."

19. For a dispute to fall within jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act, the parties to the lis as well as the subject matter of the lis must fall within the classes specified therein. As far as parties to the lis is concerned, it is not in dispute that the purchase agreement of the subject flat was executed jointly in the name of the Petitioner and the Respondent No 2. As to whether the Respondent No 2 had contributed solely towards the purchase consideration is immaterial for the present purpose. The share certificate initially issued in respect of Flat No 4, which is annexed at Page 97 of the Petition, shows the name of the Petitioner appearing rsk 13 of 22 WP -2775-15-F21.doc second to that of the Respondent No 2 and the Petitioner may be construed as an Associate Member within meaning of Section 24 of MCS Act read with Bye-law 3(xxiv)(b) of the Model Bye-laws. It appears that the Petitioner's name came to be deleted subsequently and from 25th December, 2005 the share certificate stands in the sole name of Respondent No 2. Being a past member of the Respondent No 1 Society, the parties to the lis satisfy the description required under sub-section 1(b) of Section 91 of the MCS Act.

22. Whether the dispute as regards the transfer of the share certificate in name of the Respondent No 2 is a dispute touching the management of the Society will have to be seen. Bye-Law 139 of Model Bye-laws empowers the Secretary of the Society to issue share certificate to the members and to deal with the cases of cessation of membership. The activity of issuance of share certificate, receiving applications for transfer, endorsing the share certificates, issuance of duplicate share certificate etc are part of the day to day management rsk 15 of 22 WP -2775-15-F21.doc of the affairs of the Society. When such an action of the Society is challenged as being unauthorised, it is certainly a dispute touching the management of the Society and would thus be covered by Section 91 of MCS Act.

32. In light of the above discussion, in my view, the parties to the lis as well as the subject matter of the lis fall within the purview of Section 91 of MCS Act. As the Dispute was dismissed on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, I have only considered the issue of jurisdiction and refrained from commenting on the merits of the matter.

33. Resultantly, Petition succeeds. The impugned orders dated 17 th April, 2013 and 8th December 2014 are hereby quashed and set aside.

rsk                             21 of 22
                                                                                   WP -2775-15-F21.doc