Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 45.WP.1884-2019.odt

3. Mr. Bhamburkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, raises two basic grounds, first is that the respondent No.1, by the dispute was claiming specific performance which was a relief, which was not permissible to have been entertained by the learned Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (for short "MCS") Act. The next contention is that the dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act, was hit by Section 164 of the MCS Act.

4. Taking the second plea first, it would be pertinent to note, that Section 164 of the MCS Act, bars the filing of a suit before the Civil Court without a notice being given first. A dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act, cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered to be a suit, in light of which, the contention cannot be accepted.

5. Insofar as the first contention, that the claim for specific performance, cannot be entertained in a dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act, is concerned, what is material to note, is that it is an undisputed position that the petitioner is a Society and the respondent No.1 is its member. The petitioner/Society, by a resolution dated 10.02.1980, passed in its AGM had resolved that open space is adjacent to the allotted plots, be allotted to the adjacent plot holders on the rate indicated therein. The dispute filed before the learned Cooperative Court, seeks a relief of enforcement of this resolution passed by the AGM of the petitioner/Society 3 45.WP.1884-2019.odt by seeking execution of the sale deed in consonance thereof. A perusal of the judgment of the Cooperative Court, would indicate that all the issues as raised therein from issue Nos. 1 to 7 have been answered in favour of the respondent No.1. It is only on issue No. 9, the dispute has been rejected accepting the plea that the Cooperative Court, could not entertain a plea for specific performance. As indicated above, the plea is for enforcement of the resolution dated 10.02.1980 passed by the AGM of the petitioner/Society which is clearly an action, which falls within the expression "Business of a Society" as occurring in Section 91 (1) of the MCS Act, as it is not in dispute that it is the business of the Society to lay a layout and allot plots on land to its members. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the first submission also.