9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the dispute between the petitioners and the bank can be referred by the Registrar for arbitration under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 2. Whether the petitioners should have been heard before the Assistant Registrar made the order referring the dispute to his nominee. 3. Whether the dispute touches the business of the society as per Section 91 of the Act. 4. Whether the petitioners are claiming through a member of the bank. 5. Whether the Rent Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Small Causes, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Registrar. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Referral of Dispute under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: The main point in this appeal is whether the dispute between the petitioners and the bank can be referred by the Registrar for arbitration under Sub-section (1) of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The High Court held that the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar is bound to hear the petitioners before making the orders referring the dispute to his nominee. The court also decided that the petitioners were not heard by the Assistant Registrar before the order of reference was made. However, it was not necessary to remand the matter to the Assistant Registrar for deciding the question about the existence of a dispute within the meaning of Section 91 after hearing the parties. 2. Hearing of Petitioners Before Referral: The High Court held that the petitioners were not heard by the Assistant Registrar before the order of reference was made, but it was not necessary to remand the matter to the Assistant Registrar for deciding the question about the existence of a dispute within the meaning of Section 91 after hearing the parties as the questions raised were general questions which arose in many cases and the parties desired that the position in law might be clarified. 3. Dispute Touching the Business of the Society: The High Court held that the words "touching the business of the society" in Section 91 were very wide and would include any matter which relates to or concerns or affects the business of the society. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the word "business" in this context does not mean affairs of a society but the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society which the society is authorized to enter into under the Act and the Rules and its bye-laws. The dispute between a tenant of a member of the bank in a building, which has subsequently been acquired by the bank, cannot be said to be a dispute touching the business of the bank. 4. Claiming Through a Member: The High Court held that the petitioners cannot be said to be claiming through a member of the bank as a member; consequently, Clause (b) will not apply, and the dispute between them and the bank cannot be the subject matter of a reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 91. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that before a person can be said to claim through a member, the claim should arise through a transaction or dealing which the member entered into with the society as a member. If a member entered into a transaction with the society not as a member but as a stranger, then he must be covered, if at all, by the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) or (c). 5. Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes under the Rent Act: The High Court held that in view of Section 28 of the Rent Act, the dispute which had been referred by the Assistant Registrar to his nominee could only be determined by the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, and that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to refer the said dispute to his nominee for determination. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the policy of the Rent Act is to give protection to the tenants, and various powers have been conferred on the authorities under the Rent Act to grant protection to the tenants against ejectment and other reliefs claimed by the landlords. The jurisdiction of the Registrar is ousted on broader considerations, and the provisions of Section 91 of the Act do not affect the provisions of Section 28 of the Rent Act. Conclusion: The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs to respondents Nos. 1-2. The dispute concerning the property purchased by the society from one of its members is not a dispute touching the business of the society. The Court of Small Causes has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Rent Act to entertain a proceeding by a landlord for the ejectment of a tenant. A dispute concerning the ejectment of a tenant by a landlord is outside the purview of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
|
