Skip to content


The Tanjore Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Vijayapuram by Its Secretary Vs. R. Krithivasan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 116 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Mad352; (1950)2MLJ335
ActsMadras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 - Sections 51
AppellantThe Tanjore Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Vijayapuram by Its Secretary
RespondentR. Krithivasan
Appellant AdvocateG.R. Jagadisa Iyer, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.S. Venkatarama Iyer, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredNarayanaNair v. Secretary
Excerpt:
- .....the suit is barred by reason of section 51, madras co-operative societies act, the defendant, a co-operative society, contested the claim of the plaintiff, an ex-employee, who wanted to recover the security deposit made by him at the time he was entertained by the society. the suit was for recovery of the security deposit along with the arrears of salary. the point of jurisdiction raided by the co-operative societywas that the claim for the refund of the securitydeposit was a matter touching the business ofthe society as contemplated in section 51 of the act and therefore the civil court has no jurisdiction.the teamed district munsif has found that thisla not a matter touching the business of thesociety and has decreed the suit. my attentionhas been drawn to a decision in narayananair v......
Judgment:
ORDER

Govinda Menon, J.

1. The only point raised in this case is whether the suit is barred by reason of Section 51, Madras Co-operative Societies Act, The defendant, a Co-operative Society, contested the claim of the plaintiff, an ex-employee, who wanted to recover the security deposit made by him at the time he was entertained by the society. The suit was for recovery of the security deposit along with the arrears of salary. The point of jurisdiction raided by the Co-operative Societywas that the claim for the refund of the securitydeposit was a matter touching the business ofthe society as contemplated in Section 51 of the Act and therefore the civil Court has no jurisdiction.The teamed District Munsif has found that thisla not a matter touching the business of thesociety and has decreed the suit. My attentionhas been drawn to a decision in NarayanaNair v. Secretary, Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. : AIR1948Mad343 where Satyanarayana Rao J.has held that where an employee of the Co-operative Society uses the Co-operative Society fordamages for wrongful dismissal, it cannot heheld that the action was touching the businessof the Society and that the civil Courts have nojurisdiction. In that case my learned brotherhas distinguished a judgment of KuppuswamiAiyer J. in C. R. P. No. 1134 of 1940. Mr.Jagadisa Aiyar, the learned advocate for thepetitioner, contends that the observations ofKuppuswami Aiyar J. are applicable ad idemto the facts of the present case. I am notsatisfied that when an employee asks for therefund of his security deposit and for the arrearsof salary that is a matter relating to the businessof the society. The business of the society is nottaking of security deposits, but the carrying onof some kind of co-operative business. In suchcircumstances, I agree with the learned DistrictMunsif that Section 51, Madras Co operative Societies Act, is no bar to the present suit. The other points raised in the civil revision petition are allquestions of fact, which are binding on me. TheCivil revision petition is therefore dismissed withcosts.


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