Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2] Mr. Deogirikar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the dispute raised by the respondent could not be said to be touching the business of the petitioner bank and unless this jurisdictional parameter was satisfied, there was no question of adjudicating such dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act. Mr. Deogirikar submitted that the claim for damages raised by the respondent was liable to be rejected even on merits. However, he submitted that since the dispute did not fall within the purview of Section 91 of the MCS Act, the revisional authority was duty bound to 1 of 11 dss 2 wp-2719-02 doc uphold the decision of the cooperative court upon such preliminary issue. Mr. Deogirikar placed reliance upon the decision in cases of Shyam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Ramibai Bhagwansing Advani and ors.1, Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain and ors2 Vs. 1969 SC 1320 and Belganda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Bhoras, Dist. Jalgaon Vs. Keshav Rajaram Patil3, in support of the grounds raised in the petition.

4] In order to appreciate the rival contentions, reference is necessary to the provisions contained in 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 1 AIR 1952 Bombay 445 2 AIR 1969 SC 1320 3 1994 Mh.L.J. (2) 1756

7] The Cooperative Court, by its order dated 6 July 2001 partly upheld the preliminary objections as to maintainability raised by the petitioner bank and held that the dispute application, insofar as it relates to the claim of damages, does not come within the purview of Section 91 of the MCS Act, but held that remaining part of the dispute is maintainable.

8] The respondent thereupon instituted Revision Application No. 143 of 2001 before the revisional court, which has, by the impugned judgment and order dated 14 March 2002, allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Cooperative Court dated 6 July 2001. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order makes it clear that the revisional court has applied the correct legal parameters to the facts and circumstances of the present case to hold that the dispute raised by the respondent can be said to be touching the business of the 5 of 11 dss 6 wp-2719-02 doc petitioner society. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor is the appreciation of legal position, vitiated by manifest illegality.

10] In the case of Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), one of the questions which arose for determination was the meaning of the expression "touching the business of the society". Upon analysis of the provisions contained in Section 91 of the MCS Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the word "business" does not mean affairs of a society because election of office-bearers, conduct of general meetings and management of a society would be treated as affairs of a society. The word "business" has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual trade or other similar business activity of the society 6 of 11 dss 7 wp-2719-02 doc which the society is authorized to enter into under the Act and the Rules and byelaws. The Hon'ble Apex Court went on to hold that the question whether a dispute touching the assets of a society would be a dispute touching the business of the society would depend on the nature of the society and the rules and bye-laws governing it. Ordinarily, if a society owns buildings and lets out parts of buildings which it does not require, for its own purpose it cannot be said that letting out those parts is a part of the business of the society. But it may be that it is the business of the society to construct and buy houses and let them out to its members. In that case letting out property may be part of its business. Since, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision, was concerned with a cooperative bank, it held that ordinarily a cooperative bank cannot be said to be engaged in business when it lets out properties owned by it. On this short ground, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the dispute between the tenant and a member of the bank in a building which has subsequently been acquired by the cooperative bank, cannot be said to be a disptue touching the business of the bank.