Case Note & Summary
The plaintiffs, B.Y. Chavan and another, filed a suit against the Association of Tenants of the Bombay Catholic Housing Society and others, seeking reliefs relating to the management and affairs of the society. The defendants raised preliminary issues regarding the maintainability of the suit, contending that no notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was served, and that the civil court lacked jurisdiction in view of Sections 91 and 163 of the Act. The court framed two preliminary issues: (I) whether the suit is maintainable in the absence of a notice under Section 164, and (II) whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Sections 91 and 163. The court heard arguments from both sides. The plaintiffs argued that the notice requirement is directory and that the dispute does not relate to the management of the society. The defendants contended that the notice is mandatory and that the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the co-operative court. The court analyzed the provisions and held that the notice under Section 164 is mandatory, and the suit is not maintainable without it. Further, the court held that the term 'management' under Section 91 is wide and covers all activities of the society, including allotment of flats and collection of charges, and therefore the civil suit is barred. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Societies - Notice under Section 164 - Mandatory Requirement - Suit against co-operative society or its officers is not maintainable unless a notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is served - The court held that the requirement of notice is mandatory and the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance (Paras 3-10). B) Co-operative Societies - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar under Sections 91 and 163 - Disputes relating to the management of a co-operative society fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the co-operative court under Section 91 of the Act - The court held that the term 'management' is wide and includes all activities of the society, including allotment of flats and collection of charges, and therefore the civil suit is barred (Paras 11-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit is maintainable in the absence of a notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Sections 91 and 163 of the said Act.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the suit as not maintainable for want of notice under Section 164 and for lack of jurisdiction in view of Sections 91 and 163 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Law Points
- Notice under Section 164 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960 is mandatory before filing a suit against a co-operative society
- Civil court jurisdiction is barred under Sections 91 and 163 of the Act for disputes relating to the management of the society
- The term 'management' under Section 91 includes all activities of the society including allotment of flats and collection of charges
