Judgment :- 1. This an appeal preferred against an order of the lower court dismissing the application of the appellant for execution of an award passed under the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act. 2. The lower court dismissed the application on the preliminary ground that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bombay, had no jurisdiction to pass the award and therefore it could not be executed as a decree in the courts in Kerala. 3. The appellant is a Co-operative Society, registered in Bombay under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act. It is not disputed that the provisions of the Central Act VI of 1942 (Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act) will be applicable to this Society as its objects are not confined to one State. Its head office is in Bombay and it has a branch in Mangalore. The award in this case was passed in respect of a transaction which took place in Mangalore; and the respondent is a resident of Kasaragod. 4. The main contention raised by the respondent in the lower court was that as the transaction took place in the State of Madras the only person competent to pass an award in respect of the matter was the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act and the present award being one passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Bombay cannot be executed in Kerala. The appellant on the other hand, contended that the Society being one registered in Bombay, under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, with objects not confined to one State, the Deputy Registrar of Bombay had jurisdiction to pass the award under S.2 of Act 6/1942. 5. Now under S.2 of Act VI of 1942 a Co-operative Society which is registered in Bombay, will be governed by the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, in respect of the registration, control and dissolution of that Society. S.2 reads as follows: "2. 5. Now under S.2 of Act VI of 1942 a Co-operative Society which is registered in Bombay, will be governed by the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, in respect of the registration, control and dissolution of that Society. S.2 reads as follows: "2. (1) A co-operative society to which this Act applies which has been registered in any province under the law relating to co-operative societies in force in that province shall be deemed in any other province to which its objects extend to be duly registered in that other province under the law there in force relating to co-operative societies but shall, save as provided in sub-sections (2) & (3), be subject for all the purposes of registration, control and dissolution to the law relating to co-operative societies in force for the time being in the province in which it is actually registered. (2) Where any such co-operative society has established before the commencement of this Act or establishes after the commencement of this Act a branch or place of business in a province other than that in which it is actually registered it shall, within six months from the commencement of this Act or the date of establishment of the branch or place of business, as the case may be, furnish to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies of the province in which such branch or place of business is situated a copy of its registered by-laws, and shall at any time it is required to do so by the said Registrar submit any returns and supply any information which the said Registrar might require to be submitted or supplied to him by a co-operative society actually registered in that province. (3) The Registrar of Co-operative Societies of the province in which a branch or place of business such as is referred to in sub-section (2) is situated may exercise in respect of that branch or place of business any powers of audit and of inspection which he might exercise in respect of a co-operative society actually registered in the province...." 6. A reading of the section makes it clear that the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act will govern this society as it was registered in Bombay, so far as registration, control and dissolution of it are concerned. A reading of the section makes it clear that the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act will govern this society as it was registered in Bombay, so far as registration, control and dissolution of it are concerned. It was not contended that the passing of an award is a matter relating to registration or dissolution of the society. Therefore the only question is whether the passing of an award comes within the expression ‘control' occurring in sub-section (1) of S.2. Learned Advocate General who appeared for the appellant contended that the passing of an award is a matter relating to the control of the Society and therefore the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act will apply, and that the Deputy Registrar of Bombay had jurisdiction to pass the award. 7. We do not find the argument persuasive. We do not think that the passing of an award comes within the meaning of the expression 'control' occurring in sub-section (1) of S.2. Learned Advocate General also contended relying upon sub-section (3) of S.2 that the law of the place where the Society is registered must apply in respect of a transaction entered into by a branch of that Society, albeit the branch is situate in a State other than the State where the Society is actually registered except so far as audit and inspection are concerned. 8. Now sub-section (3) excepts out of sub-section (1) of S.2 certain matters which though relating to control will be governed by the local law of the State where the branch of the Society is situate. The purpose of subsection (3), according to us, is to leave the control of the Society exercised by means of inspection and audit to the Registrar of the place where the branch is situate; but for this exception the Registrar of the place where the Society is actually registered would alone have the right of inspection and audit as they are really matters relating to the control of the Society. Therefore we come back to the question with which we started whether the word 'control' occurring in sub-section (1) of S.2 will take in the process of passing an award. We do not think that it is possible to bring that process within the meaning of the expression 'control'. Therefore we come back to the question with which we started whether the word 'control' occurring in sub-section (1) of S.2 will take in the process of passing an award. We do not think that it is possible to bring that process within the meaning of the expression 'control'. We agree with the conclusion of the lower court that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Bombay had no jurisdiction to pass the award in respect of the transaction in question. 9. We do not consider it necessary to decide the other questions raised in this appeal by the respondent's counsel for sustaining the order of the lower court, as we think that the case can be disposed of on this ground and as that was the only ground on which the lower court decided the case. 10. We therefore confirm the order of the lower court and dismiss the appeal with costs. Dismissed.