Skip to content


Bharmakka Bistappa Vs. Mallappa Fakirappa Shiri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies;Arbitration
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 140 of 1925
Judge
Reported in(1926)28BOMLR598
AppellantBharmakka Bistappa
RespondentMallappa Fakirappa Shiri
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....act (ii of 1912), section 43, rules 28, 29, 32, 33,-arbitrators - wrong decision of arbitrators-appeal to registrar-civil court-jurisdiction-award cannot be set aside by civil court.;the arbitrators, appointed under the rules framed under the co-operative societies act 1912, to adjudicate upon disputes between a co-operative society and a member who is dead, are competent to decide who are the legal representatives of the deceased debtor. if they arrive at a wrong conclusion with regard to a particular person, such person cap appeal to the registrar.;the civil courts have no jurisdiction to set aside an award made by arbitrators appointed under the co-operative societies act. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860].sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293 & 295a; [f.i. rebello, smt..........can be continued or entertained between the society and the legal representatives of the deceased debtor, the arbitrators would be competent to decide who were the legal representatives of the deceased debtor and would have jurisdiction to decide that question, even though they might come to a wrong conclusion. if a wrong conclusion is arrived at with regard to a particular person, then that person has a remedy under the act of filing an appeal it is expressly provided that all proceedings between the society and the members of the society arising from disputes between them should be decided under the act, and that the civil courts should have no jurisdiction to interfere.4. the proper course for the plaintiff to adopt was to appeal to the registrar. then the matter would have been set.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff, as the widow of the brother of one Chanbasappa, who was a member of a Co-operative Society, brought this suit for a declaration that the award passed by the arbitrators, under the Co-operative Societies Act, was void and not binding on her, Chanbasappa died indebted to the Society described in the plaint, and the re-payment had been guaranteed by his two sureties. On a reference by the Registrar, the matter went before the arbitrators under Rules 28 and 29 framed under Section 43 of Act II of 1912, Proceedings were taken against the sons of the deceased debtor and , the two sureties, and also the present plaintiff, describing her as one of the legal representatives of the principal debtor.

2. It is admitted that the plaintiff contended before the arbitrators that she was not the legal representative of the deceased debtor. In spite of that objection an award was passed against her. Any party, who is aggrieved by an award of an arbitrator, may appeal to the Registrar within one month from the date of the award as provided by Rule 32. Under Rule 33, an award, if no appeal is filed against it within one month to the Registrar under rale 32, shall not, as between the parties to the dispute, be liable to be called in question in any civil or revenue Court and shall be in all respects final and conclusive.

3. The lower Court held, under those rules, that the present suit was not competent, and an appeal against its order dismissing this suit was also dismissed. It has been urged before us that the proceedings against the plaintiff before the arbitrators were ultra vires. Once it is conceded that where a dispute lies between a Co-operative Society and a member who is dead, proceedings can be continued or entertained between the Society and the legal representatives of the deceased debtor, the arbitrators would be competent to decide who were the legal representatives of the deceased debtor and would have jurisdiction to decide that question, even though they might come to a wrong conclusion. If a wrong conclusion is arrived at with regard to a particular person, then that person has a remedy under the Act of filing an appeal It is expressly provided that all proceedings between the Society and the members of the Society arising from disputes between them should be decided under the Act, and that the civil Courts should have no jurisdiction to interfere.

4. The proper course for the plaintiff to adopt was to appeal to the Registrar. Then the matter would have been set right. We do not know whether the Registrar could now, after this lapse of time, redress the grievance which undoubtedly the plaintiff has, But all we can say is that an injustice apparently has been done to the plaintiff, and that, if possible, the Registrar or the Local Government should do its best to put the matter right.

5. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //