P. M. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS in all the five petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India have challenged the orders on interim injunction applications in five Arbitration Suits before the Nominee of the Registrar Co-operative Societies vacating the ad interim injunction granted the initial stage not to directly set off the deposit amount by the respective petitioners with the respondent-Bank towards the outstanding debt of the partnership firm M/s. National Wire Manufacturing Co. and the orders rejecting the respective Revision Applications by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal Ahmedabad. ( 2 ) M/s. National Wire Manufacturing Co. a partnership firm of which all the five petitioners were the partners at the relevant time secured loan of the amount of Rs. 11. 5 lacs from the Manekchowk Co-operative Bank Ltd. on or about 12/07/1984 on creating equitable mortgage of their Galaxi Cinema worth Rs. 35 lacs and agreed to several other conditions one of which was that Fixed Deposits of the amount of Rs. 5 0 0 should be discharged in favour of the respondent-Bank and the said Fixed Deposit should not be encashed till the amount including the interest is due and the debt is not fully discharged. It transpires that each of the five petitioners deposited the amount of Rs. 50 0 in the Fixed Deposit and some of them even secured over-draft on that amount. On or about 9/05/1988 the respondent-Bank served notices to the petitioners informing that the amount deposited by the petitioners shall be forfeited i. e. would be set off the partnership. According to the respondent-Bank the said notice was in exercise of the powers to credit the amount due to the members for the dues of the Bank under Sec. 47 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to the respondent-Bank the said notice was in exercise of the powers to credit the amount due to the members for the dues of the Bank under Sec. 47 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioners then filed five respective suits before the Registrar Co-operative challenging the notice and the debt of the partnership on various grounds including that the respondent-Bank has no power to directly credit the amount and deposit towards the debt and set off the debt to that extent till the debt is adjudicated that the amount due should be first of all recovered by sale of the mortgaged property and not from the securities of the petitioners and the amount can be recovered from the securities only after the adjudication and decree by the Nominee of the Registrar Co-operative societies and that they had already retired as partners of the said partnership firm and the respondent-Bank was duly informed of that. Petitioners accordingly prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from directly recovering the deposit amount and crediting towards the debt of the partnership firm. Petitioners also submitted the application for interim relief restraining the Bank from directly recovering the amount from the deposits of the petitioners and the Nominee of the Registrar Co-operative Societies granted lad interim relief restraining the respondent from recovering that attracted but after baring the parties vacated the interim relief and the respective Revision Applications are also rejected by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal. ( 3 ) THE Nominee of the Registrar and the Tribunal have rightly held that the petitioners are liable for the debts of the partnership and that finding is not challenged by Mr. Oza learned Advocate for the petitioners. The only contention is that the Nominee of the Registrar and the Tribunal have even in holding that the respondent-Bank has powers to recover the amount from the deposits even before the adjudication of the amount due by the competent Court i. e. Nominee of the Registrar. Co-operative Societies. It is not disputed that under Sec. 47 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act the respondent-Bank has power to forfeit the deposits but it is contended that the deposits. Co-operative Societies. It is not disputed that under Sec. 47 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act the respondent-Bank has power to forfeit the deposits but it is contended that the deposits. of the petitioners have no concern right the amount advanced to the partnership firm of which the petitioners were the partners and that the Bank cannot exercise the powers till the sight is adjudicated. In other words what the petitioner contended was that the Bank can exercise the power under Sec. 47 of the Act only in case the requisite conditions of the said section are satisfied and not otherwise. ( 4 ) MR. A. K. Clerk learned Advocate for the respondent-Bank asserted that so far as the debt due is concerned there is no dispute and therefore the adjudication of debt cannot be said to be the condition precedent. Mr. Clerk referring to the provisions of Sec. 47 of the Act asserted the right and power of the respondent-Bank to recover directly the amount towards debt of the Bank from the deposits of the petitioners. ( 5 ) CO-OPERATIVE Bank as defined in Sec. 2 (72 of the Act means a Society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 and doing the business of banking as defined in clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5 of the Banking Companies Act 1949 The Manekchowk Co-operative Bank Ltd. is therefore a Co-operative Society. For that there is no dispute between the parties. For purpose of appreciating the rival contentions of the parties the provisions in Sec. 47 of the Act are required to be considered in extenso. (1) of Sec. 5 of the Banking Companies Act 1949 The Manekchowk Co-operative Bank Ltd. is therefore a Co-operative Society. For that there is no dispute between the parties. For purpose of appreciating the rival contentions of the parties the provisions in Sec. 47 of the Act are required to be considered in extenso. Section 47 reads:"47 CHARGE AND SET IN RESPECT OF SHARE OR INTEREST OF MEMBER - In respect of any debt due to a society by any member thereof the society shall have a charge upon the share or interest of such member in the capital of the Society upon the deposit of such member with the society and upon dividend rebate or profits payable to such member and the society may set off any any sum credited or payable to such member in or towards the payment of any such debt; Provided that no co-operative bank shall have a charge upon any sum invested with it by a society out of the provident fund established by it under Sec. 62 and co-operative bank shall be entitled to set off any such sum towards any debts due from the society". The Bank can exercise powers under Sec. 47 Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act only if conditions are satisfied that (1) the debt due to the Society must be by member of the Society (2) the deposit should be by the member of the Society with the Society and (3) the Society may set offence sum credited or payable to such member in or towards the payment of any such debt. It should therefore be first of all ascertained as to whether the deposit is made by the members of the Society with the Society. The respondent is a Bank doing banking business and therefore it may be that a member of the Society in his personal capacity may deposit the amount with the Bank or any customer of the Bank even without being the member of the Bank may deposit the amount with the Bank. In that case the relationship may be of the customer and the banker and not that of a member and the Society. In that case the relationship may be of the customer and the banker and not that of a member and the Society. It should therefore first of all be ascertained that the amount deposited by the petitioners was in their capacity as member of the respondent-Bank only when the relationship of the petitioners and the respondent-Bank is established as depositors in their capacity as members of the Bank and that of the Bank as a Co-operative Society the respondent-Bank can exercise the powers under Sec. 47 of the Act It is required to be made clear that the petitioners have not challenged the power of the respondent-Bank to recover the debt from the deposits of the members and therefore that question is not for the consideration of this Court nor this Court proceeded on to decide it. It is assumed that the Co-operative Bank has power under Sec. 47 of the Act to directly recover the amount deposited by the members even without the adjudication and decree by the competent authority or the Court. The only point being considered is whether in the instant case the requisite requirements of Sec. 47 of the Act are satisfied to enable the Bank to directly recover the amount from the despite of the petitioners without adjudication or decree of the Court. As discussed above necessary finding must be that the petitioners have deposited the an writ in the respective Fixed Deposits in their capacity as member of the Bank. The Nominee of the Registrar Co-operative Societies and the Tribunal have not recorded this finding have proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners ate liable under the provisions of Sec. 47 of the Act. Till that factual aspect is considered and the finding is recorded by the authorities below it cannot be said that the provisions of Sec. 47 of the Act are applicable and the respondent-Bank has power to recover the amount due directly from the deposits. It is therefore necessary that the authorities below should first of all ascertain the capacity of the petitioner in which they deposited the amount in the respondent-Bank. The petitioners have clearly stated in their petitions that each of them deposited the amount of Rs. 50 0 and did not state that they deposited that amount in their capacity as member of the Co-operative Society and that fact does not appear to have been challenged. The petitioners have clearly stated in their petitions that each of them deposited the amount of Rs. 50 0 and did not state that they deposited that amount in their capacity as member of the Co-operative Society and that fact does not appear to have been challenged. The petitioners have sot stated that they were the members of the respondent in their personal capacity. ( 6 ) MR. Clerk learned Advocate for the respondent-Bank placed on record for the perusal of this Court letter dated 12/07/1984 in which the conditions on which the loan was advanced are specified and that letter is taken on record by the consent of the learned Advocate for petitioners. Admittedly the loan is advanced tn M/s. National Wire Mfg. Co. which is a partnership firm of which the petitioners were partners at the relevant time. One of the conditions was that the share of the Bank to the extent of 5% of the loan sanctioned should be taken. Another condition was that for extra security the Fixed Deposit of Rs. 5 lacs should he discharged in favour of the Bank and the deposits of Rs. 5 lacs cannot be encashed till the debt is due. The condition is not that the Fixed Deposit should be by the members of the Bank in their capacity as such members. The loan was advanced on mortgaging the theatre etc. The petitioners have deposited the amount and they still agree and they even made statement before the Nominee of the Registrar. Co-operative Societies that they will not withdraw the Fixed Deposit amount till the adjudication and the debt is discharged but according to them they should be allowed to withdraw the interest which they are entitled to. As the partnership firm bad to take 5% shares that condition must have been complied with and the partnership firm must have secured the shares It is not the contention of the respondent-Bank nor the finding by the authorities below that the shares are situated by the petitioners in their individual capacity and they have become the members of the respondent Co-operative Society. Till it is ascertained and the finding is recorded that the Fixed Deposits were made by the petitioners as partners of the firm and not in their individual capacity as client of the respondent-Bank and that the shares were secured by them in their individual capacity as the members of the Bank it cannot be held that the provision of Sec. 47 of the Act are applicable or can be invoked and the respondent-Bank can exercise power under that Section. In absence of any such finding it cannot be accepted that the respondent-Bank can exercise the power under Sec. 47 of the Act. Both the authorities below erred in law in proceeding on the assumption that the partitions of Sec. 47 are applicable and therefore the orders by the authorities below are not only not legal but can be termed as perverse and deserve to be set aside. ( 7 ) THIS Court as a self imposed restraint does not interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India with the interim orders as the lis between the parties can be finally adjudicated at the trial but in the instant case the effect of vacating the interim relief is that the suits filed by the petitioners are virtually dismissed and the respondent-Bank is authorised to directly recover the amount from the deposits even without ascertaining the requisite requirements of Sec. 47 of the Act and recording the finding as discussed above. In this matter therefore the Court should exercise the jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the order to the extent that the Nominee of the Registrar may record the above referred finding and then decide the interim injunction applications. ( 8 ) MR. Clerk learned Advocate for the respondent-Bank while asserting that the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution is restricted contended that this Court should not interfere with the orders by the authorities below. In support of his contention Mr. Clerk learned Advocate for the respondent-Bank referred the judgment of the Supreme Court in Venkatlal v. M/s. Bright Bros. (P) Ltd AIR 1987 SC 1939 . In support of his contention Mr. Clerk learned Advocate for the respondent-Bank referred the judgment of the Supreme Court in Venkatlal v. M/s. Bright Bros. (P) Ltd AIR 1987 SC 1939 . The Supreme Court referred to the various judgment by the same Court in which the principles laid down are that if just and proper discretion is exercised by the Court the High Court in exercise of limited jurisdiction under Art. 227 should not interfere unless the finding is clearly perverse and patently unreasonable (Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde 1978 (3) SCR 198 : AIR 1978 SC 1559 the power under Art. 227 of the Constitution is one of judicial superintendence and cannot be exercised to upset the conclusions of facts however erroneous these may be and the High Court cannot arrogate itself the powers of the appellate Court (Indian Pipe Fitting Co. v. Fakruddin M. A. Baker 1978 (1) SCR 797 : AIR 1978 SC 45 ); where there may conceivably be two opinions the finding cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale 1960 (1) SCR 890 : AIR 1960 SC 137 ); concurrent findings of facts whether relating to jurisdictional issue or otherwise are not open to interference by the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution (Mrs. Labhkuwar Bhagwant Shah v. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan 1982 (3) SCC 514 : AIR 1983 SC 538 and the High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution can go into question of facts or look into the evidence if justice 60 requires it but should decline to exercise its jurisdiction to look into the fact in the absence of clear and cut down reasons where the question depends upon the appreciation of evidence. The High Court should not interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of the inferior Tribunal or Court except where the finding is perverse in law in the sense that no reasonable person properly instructed in law could have come to such a finding or there is misdirection in law or view or fact has been taken in the teeth of preponderance of evidence or the finding is not based on any material evidence or it resulted in manifest injustice (Chandarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata 1986 (4) SCC 447 : AIR 1987 SC 117 ). ( 9 ) THE principles for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India are now well settled but even applying the above referred principles in the instant cash the Court should exercise the jurisdiction for the reasons recorded above viz. That the Tribunals below failed to record the requisite finding and proceeded on the assumption that the provisions of Sec. 47 of the Act are applicable which is perverse in law. So far as the deposit amount is with the Bank and the statement is made before the Nominee of the Registrar Co-operative Societies that the deposits will not be withdrawn as they are given by way of the respondent-Bank is not likely to suffer or to be caused any prejudice In view of above the orders by the Nominee of the Registrar Co-operative Societies on the Interim stay Applications in all the Arbitration Suits before him and in all the Revision Applications by the Tribunal are set aside. The Nominee of the Registrar Co-operative Societies should consider and record the finding of facts to whether the petitioners are the members of the respondent-Bank and as to whether the deposits are made in their capacity as members of the respondent-Bank or in their personal capacity or as partners of the firm and then to decide the Applications for interim relief on merits and according to law. All these petitions are accordingly allowed and the Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions with no order as to costs. ( 10 ) INTERIM relief granted by the Nominee of the Registrar at the initial stage be continued till the disposal of the Applications for interim injunction by the Nominee of the Registrar. ORDER: mr. Clerk learned Advocate for the respondent-Bank prays for staying the operation of this judgment for a period of 8 weeks as the respondent intend to approach the Supreme Court In view of the fact that Nominee is directed to record the finding and then to come to the conclusion the request for stay is rejected. Rule made absolute. .