This case involves the dismissal of an appeal by Shri Madhukar Mahadev Patil, challenging his termination by the Sangli Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank Ltd. The petitioner had initially filed a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, seeking reinstatement and compensation for what he claimed was an illegal termination. Both the Cooperative Court and the Cooperative Appellate Court dismissed his claims. The petitioner then approached the Bombay High Court, which discussed whether the Cooperative Court had the jurisdiction to hear the case, based on precedent set by the Supreme Court in similar disputes. The High Court ultimately held that the Cooperative Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case, and thus, the petitioner's dispute should be filed before the appropriate Civil Court.

1. Basic Facts

• The petitioner, Shri Madhukar Mahadev Patil, challenged his termination from the Sangli Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank Ltd. by filing a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
• The dispute was dismissed by the Cooperative Court and the subsequent appeal was also dismissed by the Cooperative Appellate Court.

2. Legal Principles Involved

• The petitioner's counsel cited the Supreme Court ruling in Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Limited vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange, arguing that the Cooperative Court lacked jurisdiction to hear service disputes between cooperative societies and their employees.

3. Arguments by the Petitioner

• The petitioner argued that the Cooperative Court could return the dispute under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to be filed before the Civil Court, which has jurisdiction.
• Cited precedents where courts applied procedural provisions of the CPC to disputes under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act when specific provisions were lacking.

4. Arguments by the Respondent

• The respondent's counsel argued that the Cooperative Court lacks inherent jurisdiction over the matter, and therefore, the dispute cannot be returned for filing in a Civil Court.
• Referenced several cases to support the claim that the Cooperative Court cannot exercise the powers under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC in such circumstances.

5. Court's Decision

• The Bombay High Court deliberated on whether it could direct the Cooperative Court to return the dispute for filing before a Civil Court.
• Ultimately, the court upheld the principle that the Cooperative Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute and that the petitioner must seek remedy in the Civil Court.