Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Cooperative Society Dispute Over Jurisdiction. The court found that a non-member's claim for specific performance against a member and the society does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court as it does not involve a dispute 'touching the business of the society' as required under Section 91.

In Favour of Accused
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between two companies and a cooperative society regarding the sale of office premises. The appellant, a member of the cooperative society, entered into an agreement to sell its office premises to a non-member, subject to the society's approval. The society refused permission for the transfer, leading the non-member to file a dispute in the Cooperative Court for specific performance of the agreement. The Cooperative Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but the Maharashtra Cooperative Appellate Court reversed this decision. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which upheld the appellate court's ruling. The Supreme Court was approached to determine whether the dispute fell under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The court concluded that the main claim for specific performance was not a dispute 'touching the business of the society' and therefore did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court. The court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that the claim was made by a non-member against the society through a member, which was not permissible under the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.

Headnote

A) Cooperative Law - Jurisdiction of Cooperative Courts - Dispute touching business of society - Section 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The court held that a non-member's claim for specific performance against a member and the society does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court as it does not involve a dispute 'touching the business of the society' as required under Section 91. The court found that the main claim was for specific performance against the member, not through the society. Held that the High Court erred in its conclusion (Paras 473B-H; 474A).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the dispute regarding the agreement to sell office premises falls under the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court as per Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and held that the dispute did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

Law Points

  • Jurisdiction of Cooperative Courts
  • Specific Performance
  • Cooperative Society Agreements
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1990 LawText (SC) (10) 26

Civil Appeal No. 4979 of 1990

1990-10-26

M.H. Kania, R.M. Sahai

1991 AIR 626, 1990 SCR Supl. (2) 466, 1991 SCC (1) 469, JT 1990 (4) 332, 1990 SCALE (2) 854

V.M. Tarkunde, D.R. Poddar, V.B. Joshi, K.P. Parasaran, Rama Subramaniam, A.K. Ganguli, R.P. Bhat, K. Swamy, A.S. Bhasme

Marine Times Publications Pvt. Ltd.

Shiriram Transport and Finance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court over a sale agreement.

Remedy Sought

Respondent No. 1 sought specific performance of the sale agreement and approval from the Cooperative Society.

Filing Reason

The Cooperative Society refused to grant permission for the transfer of premises.

Previous Decisions

The Cooperative Court dismissed the dispute for lack of jurisdiction, which was reversed by the Maharashtra Cooperative Appellate Court.

Issues

Whether the dispute falls under the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court as per Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant contended that the dispute was not governed by Section 91 as it did not involve a claim against the society through a member. The respondent argued that the dispute was valid under Section 91 as it involved a member and a non-member.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a non-member's claim for specific performance against a member and the society does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court as it does not involve a dispute 'touching the business of the society' as required under Section 91.

Judgment Excerpts

The main claim of Respondent No. 1 a non-member, was for a decree for specific performance of the agreement. The High Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that both the parties to the dispute belonged to the categories covered under section 91(1)(b) of the Act.

Procedural History

The Cooperative Court dismissed the dispute for lack of jurisdiction. The Maharashtra Cooperative Appellate Court set aside this order. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: Section 91
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner's Caste Certificate Claim Based on Father's Validated Caste Certificate — Principles of Res Judicata and Estoppel Apply to Caste Verification Under Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001. Father's Caste Certificate Binding o...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal by Transport Corporation Against Union's Challenge to Open Tender for Drivers and Conductors. Court upholds Single Judge's interim order staying tender notification, finding that engaging contract labour for core op...