9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration Ltd. by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was competent. Syed Mohiuddin Khadri, hereinafter referred to as the decree holder, obtained on 24 August, 1959 a decree from the City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the Co-operative Society for a sum of ₹ 6,91,293 11 Ps. with interest. On 23 November, 1959, the decree holder filed an Execution- Petition before the City Civil Court against the Co-operative Society for attachment inter alia of a sum of ₹ 4,50,000/- belonging to the Co operative society and in the custody of the' Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the Accountant General, Hyderabad. On 27 November, 1959, the City Civil Court issued a prohibitory order to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies to hold the said sum until further orders. Pursuant to 'the order, on 2; December, 1959, the accountant General wrote to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies that in view of the order of the Court, no payment relating to the Co-operative Society would be made by his office without the concurrence of the Court. The decree holder contends that the attachment is valid. The State contends that there was no debt due to the Co- operative Society and therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hment affected and the prohibitory order made by the City Civil Court and the directions to deposit the amount were not valid. It may be stated here that the State filed a suit C. S. No. 1 of 1962 under order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order of attachment. The suit was withdrawn by the Government. The High Court held that the withdrawal of the suit did not preclude the Government from questioning the validity of the attachment. On behalf of the State, it was contended that the budget appropriation of ₹ 4,50,000/- for the financial year 1959-60 did not make the sum the property of the Co- operative Society in the custody of the Public officer. It was also contended by the State that the said sum was not a debt due to the Co-operative Society. The State also contended that the rules require claim being made, bill being processed, scrutinity as to whether there is sufficient fund credited to the appropriation for payment and in the present case, there was no order for actual payment. Another contention on behalf of the State was that even if the attachment was legal, it would cease to be so by the end of the financial year because the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it should be immediately payable. Where any existing debt is payable by future instalments, the garnishee order may be made to become operative as and when each instalment becomes due. The debt must be one which the judgment-debtor could himself enforce for his own benefit. A debt is a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in the future by reason of a present obligation (See Webb v. Stenton(1). In the present case, the letter dated 12 June, 1959 proves that there is an obligation to pay the specified sum of ₹ 4,50,000/- to the Co-operative Society. The budget provision fastened on to the claim of the Co-operative Society against the State and it ripened into a debt payable to the Co-operative Society. Therefore, in the circumstances, the attachment levied by he City Civil Court was perfected by bringing money to the Court. The second question which falls for determination is whether the dissolution of the Co-operative Society by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was competent. The State Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 6 September, 1960 cancelled the registration of the Co-operative Society under section 53 of the Hyderabad Co-operative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Co-operative Society and to the exclusion of State Registrar, the powers and functions exercisable by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of the State in which such Society is registered. Section 5B of the 1942 Act which speaks of delegation of any power or authority exercisable by Central Registrar to be exercisable by Registrar of Co-operative Societies of a State is contended by the decree holder to exclude the State Registrar from acquiring any power by delegation. The decree-holder contended that the power of delegation contemplated in section SB was confined only to matters mentioned in section 5A of the 1942 Act. Under the 1942 Act Multi-unit Co-operative Societies whether registered before or after the coming into force of the Act were governed by the Co-operative Societies Act of the States in which they were registered. Under the 1942 Act and in particular sections 2 and 3 thereof, some powers like those of inspection, audit were given to Registrars of other States where such Societies had branches. Under section 4(1) of the 1942 Act, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, appoint a Central Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. Section 4(2) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1952 which were restored to the State Registrar that he passed the order of dissolution of the Society and appointed a liquidator on 6 September, 1960. Section 5B of the 1942 Act empowers the Central Government to Delegate any power or authority exercisable by the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies under this Act (meaning thereby the 1942 Act) to the State Registrars and other officers. The language in section 5B of the 1942 Act is plain. There are no words of limitation or reservation. The expression any power or authority exercisable by the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies under this Act takes in all powers under the ]942 Act including those under section 4(2) which are the powers under the State Act embodied by reference in that section. The simultaneous introduction of section 5A and section 5B into the 1942 Act in the year 1956 with effect from 1 November, 1956 point to the fact that section 5B follows section SA but does not confine section SB only to matters mentioned in section 5A of the 1942 Act. The contention on behalf of the decree- holder that the expression any power or authority exercisable by the Central Registrar of Co-operative Soc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim on account of attachment of ₹ 4,50,000/ before the Liquidator. If in liquidation, it will appear that there are prior claims or that the decree-holder will be entitled to any rateable distribution out of ₹ 4,50,000/-, the liquidator will make appropriate orders for payment of appropriate amount to the decree holder. We make it clear that after payment by the liquidator to the decree-holder whatever amount will remain due to the decree-holder, it will be open to the decree-holder to take up execution against the Government for the amount due by the Co-operative Society on the ground that the Government has taken over entire assets and liabilities of the Co-operative Society subject, of course, to such contentions as the Government may have. The appeals filed by the State are dismissed. The decree-holder will be entitled to costs in these appeals to be paid by the State. The liquidator will retain costs out of the assets in his hands. The amount of ₹ 90/- which has been withdrawn by the decree-holder will now be refunded to the liquidator. There will be one set of costs for the decree holders. There will be similarly one set of costs for the liquidator. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
