Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1) The present petitions involve identical question of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court WP No. 3783.21 Jud..odt under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCS Act, 1960', for brevity) to entertain proceedings for recovery of loan advanced by a Cooperative Bank.

2) The petitioner in all three petitions is The Washim Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., which is a registered cooperative society under the MCS Act, 1960. The petitioner had filed three separate proceedings under Section 91 of the MCS Act, 1960 against the respondents in the respective petitions for recovery of loan advanced. In all these cases, the respondents raised an issue with respect to jurisdiction of the learned Co-operative Court to entertain the proceedings in view of Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RDB Act, 1993'). The learned Co-operative Court rejected the objection pertaining to jurisdiction and decided the claim on merits. The learned Co-operative Court allowed the disputes filed by the petitioner bank by passing three different judgments. The respondents filed appeals before the Co-operative Appellate Court under Section 97 of the MCS Act, 1960.

9) Mr. Palash Mohta, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, contends that the provisions of RDB Act, particularly Sections 17, 18 and 19 thereof will not have the effect of ousting jurisdiction of the learned Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act. He contends that jurisdiction under Section 91 will continue to exist despite the bar under Section 18 of the RDB Act. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nationals Spot Exchange Ltd., Vs Union of India, reported in (2025) 8 SCC 393, judgment dated 09.02.2024 by this Court at its Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition Nos.2188 of 2022 and other connected matters (Supreme Agro Trade and others...Vs...State of Maharashtra) and judgment dated 11.04.2022 by this Court at its Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.691 of 2022 (Viren WP No. 3783.21 Jud..odt Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra).

13) Mr. Mohta, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that having regard to the doctrine of pith and substance, the Co-operative Court will also have the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and bar under Section 18 of the RDB, Act will not apply. The doctrine of pith and substance means that if an enactment substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred by the Constitution on the legislature, and the legislature enacts a law in exercise of such power, then the law so enacted cannot be held to be invalid for want of legislative competence merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another legislature. The said doctrine is invoked in cases where a virus of an Act is challenged for want of legislative competence. In the case at hand, the validity of the MCS Act WP No. 3783.21 Jud..odt is not in question. The question is of interpretation of two statutes. The question will have to be answered having regard to the provisions of Section 91 of the MCS Act and Sections 17 and 18 of the RDB Act. Section 91 of the MCS, Act confers jurisdiction upon Co-operative Court to decide disputes touching, amongst other aspects, business of a co-operative society relating to dispute between category of persons enumerated therein which includes a society and its members. The dispute in the matter is pertaining to recovery of amount advanced by the petitioner to the respondents/borrowers who were/are members of the petitioner-society. The Co-operative Court, therefore, will have the jurisdiction to entertain claim for recovery of money under Section 91 of the MCS, Act. However, Section 91 of the MCS, Act has to be read in conjunction with Sections 17 and 18 of the RBD, Act. Section 17 of the RDB Act confers jurisdiction on the Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide applications by banks for recovery of debts due to it. The term debt is defined under Section 2(g) of the RDB, Act as an amount, which is claimed as due by any bank from any WP No. 3783.21 Jud..odt person, which is advanced by a bank during the course of its business activity. It will be pertinent to mention here that in view of Section 1(4) of the RDB, Act, provisions of the said Act are not applicable in case where the debt due is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that the debt due, as claimed by the bank in all the three cases is more than Rs.10,00,000/-. As is held in the matter of Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule petitioner is a bank under the RDB Act and consequently the Debts Recovery Tribunal will have jurisdiction to entertain application for recovery of debt by the petitioner under Section 17 of the RDB Act. The jurisdiction of Courts and other authorities to deal with any matter specified under Section 17 of the RDB Act is expressly barred by Section 18 of the said Act. Section 91 and Sections 17 and 18 when read in conjunction with each other will lead to conclusion that the jurisdiction of co-operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS, Act will be ousted in cases where the debt due claimed by a Co-operative Bank is more than Rs.10,00,000/-.

WP No. 3783.21 Jud..odt

14) In the present case, the debt due is admittedly more than Rs.10,00,000/- and consequently, the jurisdiction of the learned Co-operative Court is clearly ousted by Section 18 of the RDB Act.

15) The argument pertaining to doctrine of pith and substance only implies that the State Legislature has the legislative competence to frame laws with respect to co-operative society, including a co-operative bank, and to provide mechanism for recovery of debt due to the co- operative bank. However, it cannot be disputed that such provisions framed by the State Legislature will have to be read in conjunction with central legislation, i.e. the RDB Act, 1993, which is also a validly enacted law framed by the Parliament. It will be pertinent to mention here that Section 34(1) of the RDB, Act provides overriding effect to the said Act over any other law in force. Sections 17 and 18 of the RDB, Act when read harmoniously with Section 91 of the MCS Act, 1960, will lead to the conclusion that in cases where the amount of debt due as claimed by a co-operative bank is less than Rs.10,00,000/- or such limit as may be fixed WP No. 3783.21 Jud..odt by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 1(4) of the RDB, Act, the Co-operative Court will have jurisdiction to entertain dispute for recovery of debt under Section 91 of the MCS, Act, however, if the debt due is claimed by the co-operative bank is more than Rs.10,00,000/- or the limit fixed by the Central Government, the jurisdiction of Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS, Act shall stand ousted and the Debts Recovery Tribunal alone will have the jurisdiction to entertain application for recovery of debt in view of Section 17 read with Section 18 of the RDB, Act.