Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

-------------------------

02 February, 2023 29-wp 12840-16@caw 23-22.odt Section 91. Such was not an objection before the trial Court. The objection of Shri Patil in fact is quite peculiar nay perplexing. His contention is that although Section 91 stands as amended by the 1982 amendment Act, whereby a dispute can directly be filed before the Co-operative Court in the manner as prescribed by Section 91 (supra), however, Rule 75 of the MCS Act ought to be read dehors the amendment which provides that a reference of a dispute under Section 91 shall be made in writing to the Registrar in Form 'P' and wherever necessary, the Registrar may require the party referring the dispute to him, to produce a certified copy of the relevant records on which the dispute is based and such other statements or records as may be required by him, before proceeding with the consideration of such reference. It is in such context, a requirement of 'Form P' under which 'Note no.3' is found providing that when a society is a disputant, a copy of the resolution of its committee or Board of Directors, shall accompany the application, is provided for. In my opinion, the reliance of Shri Patil on Rule 75 is misplaced and untenable considering that the dispute itself is filed in the year 1992 and strictly in the manner as recognized in substantial provision of Section 91. It is a settled principle of law that rule made under the act can never override the substantive provisions and must yield to the substantive