Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pune Zilla Madhyavarti Sahakari Bank Ltd., filed multiple writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Cooperative Court in disputes filed by various respondent societies. The respondent societies had approached the Cooperative Court seeking recovery of amounts allegedly due from the bank. The bank contended that the Cooperative Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such disputes. The High Court examined the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, particularly Sections 91 and 97. The court noted that Section 91 confers wide jurisdiction on the Cooperative Court to decide disputes touching the constitution, management, or business of a cooperative society. The disputes in question, involving loan recovery between societies, fell within this ambit. The court further observed that the bank had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 97 of the Act, which was efficacious and should have been availed. The court held that the writ petitions under Article 227 were not maintainable in the face of such alternative remedy, and no exceptional circumstances were shown to justify bypassing the statutory appeal. Consequently, all writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appeal remedy. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the disputes.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court - Section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The Cooperative Court has jurisdiction to entertain disputes touching the constitution, management, or business of a cooperative society, including disputes between a society and its members or other societies. The court held that the disputes raised by the respondent societies against the petitioner bank fell within the ambit of Section 91, as they pertained to loan recovery and related matters. (Paras 1-10) B) Cooperative Law - Alternative Remedy - Section 97 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The existence of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 97 is a bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The court held that the petitioner bank had an efficacious alternative remedy and thus the writ petitions were not maintainable. (Paras 11-20) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is discretionary and should not be exercised when an alternative statutory remedy is available. The court declined to interfere with the orders of the Cooperative Court, directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal remedy. (Paras 21-26)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Cooperative Court had jurisdiction to entertain the disputes filed by the respondent societies against the petitioner bank, and whether the writ petitions challenging the orders of the Cooperative Court were maintainable in view of the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 97 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Final Decision
All writ petitions are dismissed. The petitioner bank is at liberty to pursue the remedy of appeal under Section 97 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court under Section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- 1960
- Existence of alternative remedy under Section 97 of the Act
- Maintainability of writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India
