Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. He would submit that the administration of the property of the Society constitutes management of the affairs of the Society. He submits that for maintaining the Society, the sweeper was appointed and was allotted Room No.4. He submits that the recovery of the possession of the Society's property is concerned with the management of the Society.

12. He has taken this Court in detail through the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. He submits that the reliance placed by the Appellate Court on the decision of Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain And Ors., [AIR Harish 7 of 22 WP-8912-2019-1.docx 1969 SC 1320] is misplaced as the decision is distinguishable on facts as in that case, the Apex Court was considering Section 91 of the MCS Act in the context of business of the Society and not management of Society. He submits that in the case of Nowroji Mansion Co-operative Housing Society (supra) the issues which were under consideration were different. He submits that in the case of Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Finance Society Ltd. Bombay And Ors., [AIR 1984 Bombay 419], the Division Bench of this Court has held that the employed person is necessary part of the management of the Society and therefore when a dispute involves a claim which could be granted by authority under the Co-operative Societies Act, that dispute must be held to be touching the management of the Society. He submits that in the present case, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as sweeper and the employment as sweeper was a part of the management of the Society which would fall within the jurisdiction of Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act.

14. The principle issue seeking determination is whether the Co- operative Court had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute under Section 91 of MCS Act. It will therefore be profitable to refer to Section 91 of the MCS Act, which reads thus:

91. Disputes (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, elections of the committee or its officers conduct of general meetings, management or business of a society shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute, or by a federal society to which the society is affiliated or by a creditor of the society, to the co-operative Court if both the parties thereto are one or other of the following:-

Harish                            11 of 22
                                                      WP-8912-2019-1.docx

(3) Save as otherwise provided under 10 sub-section (2) to section 93, no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1).

15. Plain reading of Section 91 of the MCS Act would indicate that Sub-Section (1) of Section 91 is prefaced with non obstante clause and provides that a specified class of disputes arising between specified class of parties can only be referred by any of the parties to the dispute to the Co-operative Court. What is therefore required to be considered is that the subject matter of lis and the parties to the lis must fall within the provisions of Section 91 of the MCS Act. As far as the parties to the lis is concerned, there is no dispute that a dispute between the Society and any past or present, servant or nominee falls within Section 91 of the MCS Act, 1947. The debate is only as regards the subject matter of the dispute, whether the same falls within jurisdiction of Co-operative Court. Section 91 encompasses five kinds of disputes:

Harish                               15 of 22
                                                    WP-8912-2019-1.docx

The Apex Court held that it is clear that the word business in the context of Section 91 of the MCS Act does not mean the affairs of the society because elections of office bearers, conduct of general meeting and management of a society will be treated as affairs of the Society. The Apex Court held that the nature of business which a Society does can be ascertained from the objects of the Society, however it is difficult to subscribe to the proposition that whatever the Society does or is necessarily required to do for purpose of carrying out its objects can be said to be part of its business. The Apex Court was dealing with a Society which was co-operative bank and the dispute pertained to the eviction of the tenants and was not a dispute between the specified class of parties under Section 91 of MCS Act.