Skip to content


Panchshila Industrial Co-operative Societies (Multi-unit) Vs. the Gurgaon Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gurgaon - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2293 (N) of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1971SC2403; (1971)2SCC500; [1972]1SCR44
ActsPunjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Sections 55, 56 and 68; Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 - Sections 5A
AppellantPanchshila Industrial Co-operative Societies (Multi-unit)
RespondentThe Gurgaon Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gurgaon
Appellant Advocate Harbans Singh, Adv
Respondent Advocate Remeshwar Dial and ; A.D. Mathur, Advs.
Prior historyAppeal by special leave from the order dated May 4, 1970 of the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, New Delhi in Appeal No. CR/1/70
Excerpt:
.....code, 1890.sections 302 & 498-a: [dr. arijit pasayat & a.k. ganguly, jj] conviction on basis of multiple dying declarations sustainability - high court acquitting respondent-accused primarily on ground that dying declarations were not reliable; police regulations relating to recording of dying declarations were violated; that deceased was not in a fit condition to give her statement; and that there were variations in dying declarations - held, high courts observation regarding first dying declaration that it was to be disbelieved because there was no endorsement that the deceased was in a fit condition to give the statement, is contrary to law laid down by the supreme court. as far as non-observance of procedure laid down by police regulations is concerned, same would not render the..........societies new delhi dismissing the appeal filed by panchshila industrial cooperative society (multi unit) appellant before us against the award passed by the arbitrator (deputy registrar of cooperative societies rohtak) dated october 7, 1969, in respect of the dispute between the gurgaon central cooperative bank ltd., gurgaon respondent before us and the appellant. the central registrar held that he was not the appropriate appellate authority against the award in question.2. the only question which arises before us is whether the central registrar was the appropriate authority on the facts of this case. the relevant facts are these. the respondent bank approached the registrar of cooperative societies haryana for resolving a dispute between the bank and one of its members appellant.....
Judgment:

S.M. Sikri, C.J.

1. This appeal by special leave is against the order of the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies New Delhi dismissing the appeal filed by Panchshila Industrial Cooperative Society (Multi Unit) appellant before us against the award passed by the Arbitrator (Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies Rohtak) dated October 7, 1969, in respect of the dispute between the Gurgaon Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gurgaon respondent before us and the appellant. The Central Registrar held that he was not the appropriate appellate authority against the award in question.

2. The only question which arises before us is whether the Central Registrar was the appropriate authority on the facts of this case. The relevant facts are these. The respondent Bank approached the Registrar of Cooperative Societies Haryana for resolving a dispute between the Bank and one of its members appellant before us. The Registrar by his order dated February 17, 1968, in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 56 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, referred the dispute to the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Rohtak for decision. The arbitrator gave the award on October 7, 1969, directing that the appellant do pay to the respondent in all Rs. 16,05,658-20 together with interest at the rate of six and a half per cent per annum until the realisation of the principal amount viz. Rs. 11,52,535.00.

3. The appellant as mentioned above filed an appeal against this award before the Central Registrar. The respondent Bank is a co-operative society governed by the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act 1961. Section 55(1) of this Act inter alia provides that if any dispute touching the Constitution management or the business of a co-operative society arises between a member and the society such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. Section 55(2) provides that for the purposes of Sub-section (1) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member whether such debt or demand be admitted or not, shall be deemed to be a dispute touching the Constitution, management or the business of the co-operative society. Sub-section (3) of Section 55 provides that 'if any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is or is not a dispute touching the Constitution management or the business of a cooperative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.'

4. There is no doubt that the dispute between the respondent Bank and the appellant fell within Section 55 and was properly referred to arbitrations under that section. It is however, contended that the appellant was registered in December 1955 under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1955 and by virtue of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and Section 5A of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, the appellant has ceased to be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act because it has become a multi-unit co-operative society. There is no doubt that by virtue of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and Section 5A of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies, Act, 1942, the appellant has become a multi-unit co-operative society and the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act applies to it. But that Act is for the incorporation, regulation and winding up of co-operative societies with objects not confined to one State and it has no impact on Section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, inasmuch as the appellant remains a member of the co-operative society, namely, the respondent Bank. There is nothing in the provisions of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act to indicate that a multi-unit co-operative society cannot be a member of a co-operative society governed by the Punjab Act of 1961. If the appellant continues to be a member, then the terms of Section 55 apply and a dispute can be referred to arbitration under that section. An appeal against that award lies under Section 68 of the Punjab Act of 1961 to the Government of the decision or order was made by the Registrar and to the Registrar if the decision or order was made by any other person. It is quite clear therefore, that the Central Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

5. The learned Counsel next contends that the Central Registrar should not have dismissed the appeal but returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the proper authority. There is no statutory provision enabling the Central Registrar to do so. At any rate, if an appeal is filed before the appropriate authority under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, that authority will no doubt take into consideration the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 29(2) and decide whether the appeal should be entertained or not.

6. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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