Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Nina Noemia Pinto (since expired and represented by her legal heir Mrs. Xacuntala Makhija), filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji (Suit No.107/1986/A) against the respondent Victor Pereira, seeking to restrain him from interfering with her possession of a flat in a building constructed by her on suit property. The respondent claimed to be a member of a co-operative society formed by the flat purchasers and that the flat was allotted to him by the society. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which bars civil courts from entertaining disputes relating to the management or business of a co-operative society. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. In the second appeal, the only substantial question of law was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction. The High Court held that the dispute between the appellant (who was a member of the society) and the respondent (also a member) regarding the allotment of a flat was a dispute touching the business of the society, and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under Section 91. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the lower courts was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar under Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Dispute between member and society regarding allotment of flat - Held that the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for permanent injunction bearing No.107/1986/A instituted in the Court of C.J.S.D., Panaji by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant Victor Pereira on account of provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court confirming the dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction is upheld.
Law Points
- Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960
- Dispute between member and society
- Exclusive jurisdiction of Co-operative Court
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 244
Second Appeal No. 22 of 2000
Mr. Shivan Dessai for the appellant, Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the respondents
Smt. Nina Noemia Pinto (Expired) represented by legal heir Mrs. Xacuntala Makhija
Mr. Victor Pereira and Mr. Teofilo Fernando Antonio Pinto
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against dismissal of suit for permanent injunction on ground of lack of civil court jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to restrain respondent from interfering with her possession of a flat.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed ownership and possession of suit property and flat; respondent claimed allotment by co-operative society.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed suit holding civil court had no jurisdiction; first appellate court confirmed dismissal.
Issues
Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for permanent injunction when the dispute relates to the business of a co-operative society under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the suit was for injunction based on her ownership and possession, not a dispute under the Act.
Respondent argued that the dispute was between members of a co-operative society regarding allotment of a flat, falling under Section 91.
Ratio Decidendi
The dispute between the appellant and the respondent regarding the allotment of a flat in a building owned by a co-operative society is a dispute touching the business of the society and falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit.
Judgment Excerpts
Only substantial question that arises in the present second appeal is whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for permanent injunction bearing No.107/1986/A instituted in the Court of C.J.S.D., Panaji by the appellant/ plaintiff against the respondent / defendant Victor Pereira on account of provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960.
Procedural History
The appellant filed Suit No.107/1986/A in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji for permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The first appeal was dismissed by the appellate court. The appellant then filed the present second appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: Section 91
