CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) ON 3rd August, 1989,1 heard the learned counsel for parties in detail in regard to merits and recorded the following in the order sheet"after hearing Mr. V. N. Ramanand and having regard to Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 70 that the credit agency could raise a dispute under section 70 of the Act may not be disputed. Therefore, the only question which falls for determination as already noticed is whether the Assistant Registrar lost jurisdiction during the pendency of the dispute before him on account of enlargement of the area of activities of the co-operative Society to more than one taluk. From the grounds of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which this Court has perused from the records produced by the learned Government Pleader, it is clear, there was no enlargement of activities of the Co-operative Society to more than one taluk during the pendency of the dispute before the Assistant registrar. A preliminary objection was raised in regard to jurisdiction on the ground that the area of activity of the Co-operative society covered the entire area of the municipal Corporation, City of Bangalore and the Bangalore Development authority and therefore it was active in more than one taluk i. e. , Bangalore South taluk and North Taluk and as such, the assistant Registrar could not entertain the dispute. That preliminary objection was overruled and it was never challenged by the first respondent Co-operative Society. A reading of the Karnataka Appellate tribunal's order shows clearly that they formed an impression that during the pendency of the dispute and before the passing of the award the Assistant registrar lost jurisdiction because the area of the operation was enlarged by the co-operative Society. That only shows, without any material to lead to such a conclusion, the Tribunal arrived at that conclusion on a total misreading of the material before it as can be seen from the records produced by the learned government Pleader. Mr. Rangaraj says that there has been an amendment to the bye-laws and that he is not in a position to support the conclusion reached by the Tribunal because he lacks the records which his counter-part who appeared before the tribunal has been hospitalised and therefore, the counsel, in this Court, has no access to those papers. Mr. Rangaraj says that there has been an amendment to the bye-laws and that he is not in a position to support the conclusion reached by the Tribunal because he lacks the records which his counter-part who appeared before the tribunal has been hospitalised and therefore, the counsel, in this Court, has no access to those papers. He prays for two weeks' time to produce those papers after securing the same from the counsel who was appearing before the Tribunal. Two weeks' time finally granted for that purpose. No furthertime will be given. Call after two weeks. " ( 2 ) THEREAFTER Sri. Rangaraj has produced the amendment to the bye-laws of the Cooperative Society by which the area of its operation was extended to the whole of the city of Bangalore. It was this fact which induced the respondent Appellate Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the third respondent Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies, Bangalore I Circle, Chamarajapet, did not have jurisdiction to continue to entertain the dispute because during the pendency of proceedings before him the amendment to the bye-laws had taken place. This question of want of jurisdiction was never raised by the respondent Co-operative society before the third respondent Assistant registrar of Co-operative Societies. It was for the first time raised before the Appellate authority. ( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, originally the petitioner bank raised the dispute before the Joint registrar of Co-operative Societies who returned the reference with a direction that it may be taken before the third respondent on the ground that the activities of the first respondent Co-operative Society did not extend beyond one taluk. ( 4 ) SRI Urval Ramanand, learned Counsel for the petitioner Canara Bank, has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pathumma v Kuntalan Kutty, AIR 1981 Supreme court, 1683. 1 do not think that decision has any direct bearing on the facts of the present case. The facts of Pathumma's case were as follows:a suit for partition was filed in the Court of the Munsiff at Parappanangadi as far back as in the year 1940. After the filing of the suit, territorial jurisdiction in that area was changed by an amendment. The facts of Pathumma's case were as follows:a suit for partition was filed in the Court of the Munsiff at Parappanangadi as far back as in the year 1940. After the filing of the suit, territorial jurisdiction in that area was changed by an amendment. While Parappanangadi Munsiff s Court had passed the preliminary decree in the partition suit, the plaintiff presented the petition for drawing up the final decree in the Court of Munsiff, manjeri, who had acquired the territorial jurisdiction. An objection was raised before the Manjeri Munsiff that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for final decree. That objection was overruled and final decree was drawn up. On appeal to the District Judge, the District Judge upheld the decision of the Munsiff and confirmed the final decree granted. On further appeal to the High Court of Kerala, Kerala High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the district Judge as well as the Munsiff, Manjeri, on the ground that the Court at Manjeri had no jurisdiction to draw up the final decree. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the supreme Court relying upon the provisions contained in Section 21 (1) of the Code of civil Procedure which had gone unnoticed by all the three Courts below came to the conclusion that the High Court was in error in interfering with the decree which had not resulted in any injustice having regard to the ingredients necessary to attract the rigour of section 21 where there is want of jurisdiction. ( 5 ) I have already noticed that decision has no direct hearing on the tacts of this case. But nevertheless the principles enunciated may be applied, even to proceedings before an arbitrator under Section 70 of the Karnataka co operative Societies Act. In any event, 1 am of the firm view that the bye-laws amended during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings before the third respondent cannot affect its initial jurisdiction because the amendment of bye-Saws is an exercise undertaken by the Co-operative Society and such exercise resulting in amendment of the bye-law will not deprive the statutory jurisdiction of the third respondent who acquired the jurisdiction by operation of law, in accordance with the rules framed under the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Bye-laws of a Co-operative Society do not have the force of law. Bye-laws of a Co-operative Society do not have the force of law. Therefore it cannot divest the initial jurisdiction which the arbitrator third respondent had acquired when un- disputedly the Co-operative Society at the time of cause of action was subject to his jurisdiction under Section 70 of the Act. Therefore, the tribunal was clearly in error in remanding the matter for fresh adjudication by the Joint Registrar. That was clearly against the well established principles of resolving the disputes. One of the objects of section 70 of the Act is to give finality to the adjudicated disputes arising under the Act as quickly as possible and if that is not accomplished by resorting to amendment of bye-law and in that guise deprive the jurisdiction which has been exercised by one or the other of the designated authorities under the rules, the very object of arbitration may be defeated and inordinate delay caused shifting the dispute from Assistant Registrar to Deputy Registrar, Deputy Registrar to joint Registrar and in the reverse process if the bye-law is restored to what it was before. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons and with particular reference to the fact that the transaction is admitted and the debt to the petitioner Bank has remained unpaid, the tribunal was clearly in error in setting aside the award and remanding it for fresh disposal. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the impugned order is set aside and the order of the arbitrator is confirmed in the interests of justice. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .