Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
PANCHSHILA INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERA-TIVE SOCIETIES(MULTI UNIT)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GURGAON CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANKLTD. GURGAON
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/08/1971
BENCH:
SIKRI, S.M. (CJ)
BENCH:
SIKRI, S.M. (CJ)
RAY, A.N.
PALEKAR, D.G.
CITATION:
1971 AIR 2403 1972 SCR (1) 44
ACT:
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, s. 55-Multi Unit
Co-operative Societies Act, 1942-Latter Act has no impact on
s. 55 of the former Act-Central Registrar not appellate
authority against award in respect of disputes between co-
operative society governed by Punjab Act of 1961 and its
member.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent bank is a co-operative society governed by
the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. A dispute
between the bank and the appellant, one of its members, was
referred by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in
exercise of the powers vested in him by s. 55 of the Act, to
the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies for
arbitration. The appellant filed an appeal against the
award before the Central Registrar of Co-operative
Societies. The Central Registrar dismissed the appeal
holding that he was not the appropriate appellate authority,
under the Act. In appeal to this Court the appellant con-
tended that it was registered in 1955 under the Punjab Co-
operative Societies Act 1955 and by virtue of the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956 and s. 5(A) of the Multi-Unit Co-
operative Societies Act, 1942, it had ceased to be governed
by the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act,
because, it had become a multi-unit co-operative Society.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : There is nothing in the provisions of the Multi-unit
Cooperative Societies Act to indicate that a multi-unit co-
operative society cannot be a member of a co-operative
society governed by the Punjab Act of 1961. The multi unit
co-operative societies Act is for the incorporation,
regulation and winding up of co-operative societies with
objects not confined to one State and it has no impact on s.
55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, in as
much as the appellant remains a member of the Co-operative
Society, namely, the respondent bank. If the appellant
continues to be a member then the terms of s. 55 apply and a
dispute can be referred to arbitration under that section.
An appeal against that award lies under s. 68 of the Punjab
Act of 1961 to the government if the decision or order was
made by the Registrar and to the Registrar if the decision
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
or order is made by any other person. Therefore the Central
Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. [46H]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2293 of 1970.
45
Appeal by special leave, from the order dated May 4, 1970 of
the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, New Delhi
in Appeal No. CR/1/70.
Harbans Singh, for the appellant.
Remeshwar Dial and A.D. Mathur, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, C. J.-This appeal by special leave is against the
order of the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies New
Delhi dismissing the appeal filed by Panchshila Industrial
Cooperative Society (Multi Unit) appellant before us against
the award passed by the Arbitrator (Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies Rohtak) dated October 7, 1969, in
respect of the dispute between the Gurgaon Central
Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gurgaon respondent before us, and the
appellant. The Central Registrar held that he was not the
appropriate appellate authority against the award in
question.
The only question which arises before us is whether the
Central Registrar was the appropriate authority on the facts
of this case. The relevant facts are these. The respondent
Bank approached the Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Haryana for resolving a dispute between the Bank and one of
its members appellant before us. The Registrar by his order
dated February 17, 1968, in exercise of the powers vested in
him under S. 56 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act,
1961, referred the dispute to the Deputy Registrar
Cooperative Societies Rohtak for decision. The arbitrator
gave the award on October 7, 1969, directing that the
appellant do pay to the respondent in all Rs. 16,05,658 - 20
together with interest at the rate of six and a half per
cent per annum until the realisation of the principal amount
viz. Rs. 11,52,535 00.
The appellant as mentioned above filed an appeal against
this award before the Central Registrar. The respondent
Bank is a co-operative society governed by the provisions of
the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act 1961. Section 55(1)
of this Act inter alia provides that if any dispute touching
the constitution management or the business of a co-
operative society arises between a member
46
and the society such dispute shall be referred to the Re-
gistrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to
entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such
dispute. Section 55(2) provides that for the purposes of
sub-section (1) a claim by the society for any debt or de-
mand due to it from a member or the nominee heirs or legal
representatives of a deceased member whether such debt or
demand be admitted or not, shall be deemed to be a dispute
touching the constitution, management or the business of the
co-operative society. Sub-section (3) of S. 55 provides
that "if any question arises whether a dispute referred to
the Registrar under this section is or is not a dispute
touching the constitution management or the business of a
cooperative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar
shall be final and shall not be called in question in any
court."
There is no doubt that the dispute between the respondent
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Bank and the appellant fell within S. 55 and was properly
referred to arbitration under that section. It is however,
contended that the appellant was registered in December 1955
under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1955, and by
virtue of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and S. 5A of
the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, the
appellant has ceased to be governed by the provisions of the
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act because it has become a
multi-unit co-operative society. There is no doubt that by
virtue of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and S. 5A of
the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies, Act, 1942, the
appellant has become a multi-unit co-operative society and
the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act applies to it.
But that Act is for the incorporation, regulation and
winding up of co-operative societies with objects not
confined to one State, and it has no impact on S. 55 of the
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, inasmuch as the
appellant remains a member of the co-operative society,
namely, the respondent Bank. There is nothing in the
provisions of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act to
indicate that a multi-unit co-operative society cannot be a
member of a co-operative society governed by the Punjab Act
of 1961. If the appellant continues to be a member, then
the terms of S. 55 apply and a dispute can be referred to
arbitration under that section. An appeal against the at
award lies under S. 68 of the Punjab Act of
47
1961 to the Government of the decision or order was made by
the Registrar, and to the Registrar if the decision or order
was made by any other person. It is quite clear therefore,
that the Central Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the
appeal.
The learned counsel next contends that the Central
Registrar should not have dismissed the appeal but returned
the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the proper
authority. There is no statutory provision enabling the
Central Registrar to do so. At any rate, if an appeal is
filed before the appropriate authority under the Punjab Co-
operative Societies Act, 1961, that authority will no doubt
take into consideration the provisions of S. 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, read with S. 29(2) and decide whether
the appeal should be entertained or not.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
K.B.N. Appeal dismissed.
48