Skip to content


Kamal Hath Kargha Vastra Utpadak Shakari Samiti Ltd. and Three ors. Vs. Moolchand and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 438 of 1966
Judge
Reported in1968WLN82
AppellantKamal Hath Kargha Vastra Utpadak Shakari Samiti Ltd. and Three ors.
RespondentMoolchand and anr.
Excerpt:
.....of cooperative society undertake personal responsibility to pay amount--held, suit against the society barred and not against defendants. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section..........by section 75(1)(c) of the rajasthan co-operative societies act, 1965.2. defendant nd. 1 is a co-operative society which produces yarn. defendant no. 2 is its president, defendant no. 3 is it secretary and defendant no. 4 is its treasurer. on 4-3-1962, an agreement took place between the society and the plaintiffs about the sale of the yarn produced by the society through the plaintiffs on commission and about other matters. on 1-10-62 a fresh agreement was executed between the plaintiffs and defendants nos. 2, 3, & 4. on 9-3-1963, accounting took place between the society and the plaintiffs. as a result of this accounting, a sum of rs. 4532/-/- was found due to the plaintiffs from the society. this account stated was signed by defendants nos. 2 to 4 who undertook personal liability to.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narain, J.

1. This is a revision application by the defendants against an order of the Civil Judge, Kishangarh, holding that the suit brought against them by the plaintiff is not barred by Section 75(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.

2. Defendant ND. 1 is a co-operative society which produces yarn. Defendant No. 2 is its President, Defendant No. 3 is it Secretary and Defendant No. 4 is its Treasurer. On 4-3-1962, an agreement took place between the society and the plaintiffs about the sale of the yarn produced by the society through the plaintiffs on commission and about other matters. On 1-10-62 a fresh agreement was executed between the plaintiffs and Defendants Nos. 2, 3, & 4. On 9-3-1963, accounting took place between the society and the plaintiffs. As a result of this accounting, a sum of Rs. 4532/-/- was found due to the plaintiffs from the society. This account stated was signed by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who undertook personal liability to pay the amount. They also mortgaged yarn belonging to the society in favour of the plaintiffs. The relevant part of Section 75(1)(c) runs, as follows:

75 Disputes which may be referred to arbitration-(I) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, in any dispute touching the constitution/management, or the business of a co-operative society, arises-

*** *** ***

(c) between the society or its committee and any past committee...any agent...past agent....

*** *** ***

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.

3. So far as the suit against the society is concerned it is barred by the above provision of law. So far as the suit against Defendents Nos. 2, 3 & 4 is concerned it is not so barred, as these three defendants have undertaken personal responsibility to pay the amount of Rs. 4,532/-.

4. I accordingly, allow the revision application in part, as indicated above The trial court shall dismiss the suit against Defendant No. 1 and shall decide it on merits against Defendants Nos. 2, 3 & 4. The stay order passed by this Court on 21-12-1966 is discharged. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this revision application.


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