9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Sections 40 and 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935.
Summary: The Supreme Court considered a case involving a dispute under Sections 40 and 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. The appellant, a Marketing Union Limited, claimed a loss due to a shortage of coal during the tenure of the respondent, a Depot Manager. The matter was referred to the Assistant Registrar under Section 48, who absolved the respondent. The appellant appealed to the Joint Registrar, who accepted the appellant's case. The Patna High Court held that since the matter fell under Section 40, Section 48 could not apply, deeming the award illegal. The appellant argued that Section 48 should apply to the dispute, even if covered by Section 40. The High Court's decision was based on the principle that specific provisions prevail over general ones. The Supreme Court held that plural remedies under the law are valid, and the appellant could have pursued action under Section 48 for recovery of the loss, even if Section 40 applied. The Court cited a similar decision under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act to support this view. Regarding the limitation period, the Court clarified that the six-year rule under Section 40 did not apply to the reference under Section 48. The Court found that the High Court's reliance on a previous case for limitation was incorrect. As other issues raised by the respondent remained undecided, the case was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgement, and remitted the case for further consideration on remaining points.
|
