Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Mukund Iron Staff Association Coop. Housing Society Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 30th April 2013 passed by the Cooperative Court No. 1, Mumbai, in Dispute No. 22 of 2012. The Cooperative Court had allowed an application filed by the respondents (original defendants) under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, holding that the dispute between the society and the respondents, who were non-members, was maintainable before the Cooperative Court. The petitioner society contended that the Cooperative Court lacked jurisdiction because the respondents were not members of the society and the dispute pertained to title to property, which should be decided by a civil court. The respondents argued that the dispute related to the business of the society and thus fell within the purview of Section 91. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Cooperative Court has jurisdiction to entertain disputes touching the business of the society, including property disputes, even if the opposite party is a non-member. The court further noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 97 of the Act and had not shown any exceptional circumstances to bypass that remedy. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Cooperative Court was directed to proceed with the dispute on merits.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court - Section 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Dispute between society and non-member regarding property title - The court held that the Cooperative Court has jurisdiction to decide disputes touching the business of the society, including property disputes, even if the opposite party is a non-member, as long as the dispute relates to the society's business. The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 97 of the Act. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Alternative Remedy - Writ Jurisdiction - The court held that when an alternative statutory remedy is available, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless exceptional circumstances exist. The petitioner failed to show any exceptional circumstances. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Cooperative Court has jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to entertain a dispute between a cooperative housing society and a non-member regarding title to property, and whether the writ petition challenging the Cooperative Court's order is maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Cooperative Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 97 of the Act. The Cooperative Court was directed to proceed with the dispute on merits.
Law Points
- Cooperative Court jurisdiction
- Section 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- 1960
- property dispute
- non-member
- society's title
- civil court jurisdiction
- alternative remedy
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 47
WRIT PETITION NO.7688 OF 2013
M/s. Mukund Iron Staff Association Coop. Housing Society Ltd.
Vasant Ramchandra Patil (since deceased through legal heirs) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Cooperative Court holding that a dispute between a cooperative housing society and non-members regarding property is maintainable under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order of the Cooperative Court dated 30th April 2013 and to hold that the Cooperative Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
Filing Reason
The petitioner society filed the writ petition because the Cooperative Court allowed an application of the respondents under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, holding that the dispute was maintainable before it.
Previous Decisions
The Cooperative Court No. 1, Mumbai, in Dispute No. 22 of 2012, passed an order on 30th April 2013 allowing the application of the respondents under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Issues
Whether the Cooperative Court has jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to entertain a dispute between a cooperative housing society and a non-member regarding title to property.
Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 97 of the Act is available.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Cooperative Court has no jurisdiction because the respondents are not members of the society and the dispute pertains to title to property, which should be decided by a civil court.
The respondents argued that the dispute relates to the business of the society and thus falls within the purview of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi
The Cooperative Court has jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to decide disputes touching the business of the society, including property disputes, even if the opposite party is a non-member. When an alternative statutory remedy is available, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Judgment Excerpts
The Cooperative Court has jurisdiction to entertain disputes touching the business of the society, including property disputes, even if the opposite party is a non-member.
When an alternative statutory remedy is available, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Procedural History
The petitioner society filed Dispute No. 22 of 2012 before the Cooperative Court No. 1, Mumbai. The respondents filed an application under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which was allowed by the Cooperative Court on 30th April 2013. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: 91, 97
- Constitution of India: 226
