judgment Advocates appeared : C.J. Sawant, Sr.Adv. with D.W. Bhosale with B.G. Saraf in W.P. No. 6029/2002, for petitioner. G.E. Vahanvati, Adv.Gen. with Y.D. Mulani, A.G.P. in W.P. No. 6029/2002, for respondent Nos. 1 2. Shailesh Shah with Ms. Mamta Sudh with P. Ganwani Ms. Meenakshi Mhapankar i/b. V. Deshpande Co. in W.P. No. 6029/2002, for respondents Nos. 3 4. Shekhar Naphade with A.A. Joshi in W.P. No. 2376/2002, for petitioner. Anjad Sayed, Asst.G.P. in W.P. No. 2376/2002, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Kishore Tembe in W.P. No. 2376/2002, for respondent No. 4. Per DESHMUKH D.K., J.:—A batch of writ petitions has been placed before this Bench. The principal question of law that arises for consideration is ""Do the courts and authorities constituted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the 1960 Act) and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (the 2002 Act) continue to have jurisdiction to entertain applications/disputes submitted before them by the Co-operative Bank incorporated under the 1960 Act and the 2002 Act for an order for recovery of debts due to them, after establishment of a Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the 1993 Act)"". 2. The events that led to the placing of all these petitions before us are that the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Scheduled Multi-State Co-operative Bank, filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the 1993 Act for recovery of certain amounts from M/s. State Glass Works. Before the Debts Recovery Tribunal an objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to entertain the proceedings on the ground that the applicant/bank was a Co-operative Bank and not a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. That objection was upheld by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. An appeal preferred against that order of the DRT before the Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. Therefore, the Writ Petition No. 835 of 2002 was filed in this Court challenging those orders. That writ petition was decided by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 17/18 December, 2002, 2003(3) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)347 : 2003(2) All.M.R. 583 , (The Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Star Glass Works and others)1. By that judgment this Court set aside the order passed by the DRT as also the Appellate Tribunal. That writ petition was decided by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 17/18 December, 2002, 2003(3) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)347 : 2003(2) All.M.R. 583 , (The Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Star Glass Works and others)1. By that judgment this Court set aside the order passed by the DRT as also the Appellate Tribunal. This Court held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under 1993 Act possess the jurisdiction to entertain an application for recovery of debts due to it submitted by a Co-operative Bank. The Division Bench after referring to the provisions of section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, in detail, held that the Co-operative Bank is a bank within the meaning of section 2(d) of 1993 Act and therefore the only remedy available in terms of the provisions of the 1993 Act to a Co-operative Bank after constitution of the Tribunal under 1993 Act for recovery of dues due to it is apply to such a Tribunal for an order. 3. It appears that Shri Narendra Kantilal Shah filed Writ Petition No. 6029 of 2002 in this Court praying for an order setting aside the recovery certificate dated 6th September, 2000 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies as also the warrant of attachment issued pursuant thereto. It appears that the recovery certificate has been issued by the Asst. Registrar in exercise of his power under section 101 of the 1960 Act on the application made by the Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd., which was joined as respondent No. 3 in that writ petition. When that petition came up for admission before the learned Single Judge of this Court, it appears that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Shamrao Vithal Bank referred to above was relied on by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge, however, it appears was of the opinion that the Division Bench in its judgment referred to above did not consider that the 1960 Act has been enacted under Entry 32 of the List-II in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge observed that considering the importance of the question it would be appropriate to place the papers before the Honble the Chief Justice, so that the matter can be referred to the Full Bench. The learned Single Judge observed that considering the importance of the question it would be appropriate to place the papers before the Honble the Chief Justice, so that the matter can be referred to the Full Bench. It appears that, thereafter, papers were placed before the Honble the Chief Justice, who decided to refer the matter to the Full Bench. It further appears that some writ petitions came up before the Division Bench of this Court, which also directed that the matter should be placed before the Full Bench. This is how all these petitions have been placed before us for deciding the above referred questions. 4. It is common ground before us that the writ petitions which have been placed before us have been filed by persons against whom either an order has been made by the courts or authorities constituted under the two Co-operative Societies Act referred to above for payment of moneys or proceedings have been initiated by the Co-operative Banks before the courts or authorities for such an order after constitutions of the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as ""the 1993 Act""), which are pending before the courts/authorities. It is also common ground before us that the banks which are respondents in these petitions are either registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ""the 1960 Act"") or under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ""the 2002 Act""). 5. The parties have agreed that for the purpose of answering the question referred to above, we can take the following as the admitted position: (i) That the 1960 Act was enacted by the legislature of the State of Maharashtra in the year 1960 under Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. (ii) That the 2002 Act has been enacted by the Parliament under Entry 44 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. (iii) That the Co-operative Banks which are respondents in these petitions have all obtained licence for operating as a bank from the Reserve Bank of India in consonance with the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ""the 1949 Act"") as amended by Act 23 of 1965, which came into effect on 1-3-1966. (iii) That the Co-operative Banks which are respondents in these petitions have all obtained licence for operating as a bank from the Reserve Bank of India in consonance with the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ""the 1949 Act"") as amended by Act 23 of 1965, which came into effect on 1-3-1966. (iv) The recovery certificates/awards which are challenged in these petitions have been made by the authorities or courts constituted under 1960 Act or the 2002 Act after constitution of the Recovery Tribunal under the 1993 Act as also the proceedings which have been challenged are instituted after the date on which the Tribunal was constituted or were pending on that date. (v) That the Co-operative Banks incorporated under the 2002 Act are primary Co-operative Banks within the meaning of section 56(ccv) of the 1949 Act. (vi) That in so far as the provisions of section 74 of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 are concerned, they were stayed by this Court and they were not in force till that Act was repealed by 2002 Act. 6. At the hearing of these matters on behalf of the petitioners Shri C.J. Sawant, Sr. Advocate with Shri D.W. Bhosale with Shri B.G. Saraf made submissions and Shri G.E. Vahanvati, Advocate General with Mr. Y.D. Mulani AGP made submissions on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Shailesh Shah with Ms. Mamta Sudh with Mr. P. Ganwani and Ms. Meenakshi Mhapankar i/b V. Deshpande Co. made submissions for respondents Nos. 3 4 to whom notices were issued by the learned Single Judge. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Single Judge has observed that the Division Bench while holding that it is the Debts Recovery Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an application submitted by a Co-operative Bank for recovery of a debt due to it did not consider that the 1960 Act has been enacted by the legislature of the State of Maharashtra under Entry 32 of List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. While the 1993 Act has been enacted by the Parliament under Entry 45 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. A Co-operative Bank is basically a Co-operative Society, therefore, the legislation of a State is entitled to legislate in relation to all the aspects of the society. While the 1993 Act has been enacted by the Parliament under Entry 45 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. A Co-operative Bank is basically a Co-operative Society, therefore, the legislation of a State is entitled to legislate in relation to all the aspects of the society. It is submitted that the 1960 Act permits registration of various classes of societies. One of the class which can be registered is societies doing banking business. The classes are described by the 1960 Act and Rules made thereunder (as ""Co-operative Bank""). It is submitted that the term ""Co-operative Bank"" is defined by section 2(10) of the 1960 Act to mean a society which is doing business of banking as defined in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the 1949 Act. It is further submitted that section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act found in Chapter 9 of the 1960 Act provides for settlement of any dispute touching the Constitution, conduct of general meetings, management or business of society of all classes by the Co-operative Court. Similarly section 101 of 1960 Act permits the Urban Co-operative Bank registered under the 1960 Act to obtain a recovery certificate against a person who owes moneys to it by making an application under that section. It is submitted that as the subject of banking is covered by Entry 45 of List-I in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and as the recovery of dues by the banks is an essential part of banking business, the State legislature while enacting the law under the Entry 32 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution may be competent to make provisions for recovery of dues by banking societies also, till the Parliament maked a law on that specific subject namely recovery of dues by the banks under Entry 45 of List-I. It is submitted that as soon as the Parliament legislates under Entry No. 45 of List-I and makes a law relating to recovery of dues by the banks including Co-operative Banks, the provisions contained in the Co-operative Societies Act relating to that subject will cease to operate in relation to the Co-operative Banks. It is submitted that till the 1993 Act was enacted by the Parliament under Entry No. 45 of List-I, there was no law made by the Parliament dealing with the subject of recovery of dues by the banks. It is submitted that till the 1993 Act was enacted by the Parliament under Entry No. 45 of List-I, there was no law made by the Parliament dealing with the subject of recovery of dues by the banks. The Parliament enacted the 1993 Act under Entry 45 of List-1, which provided for Constitution of Tribunal for deciding applications by the banks and the financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. It is submitted that section 18 ousts the jurisdiction of all courts and authorities to exercise the jurisdiction in relation to matters specified in section 17 of the 1993 Act namely applications by banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to them. It is further submitted that sub-section (1) of section 34 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the 1993 Act and therefore, as soon as the Tribunal under the 1993 Act is constituted neither the Co-operative Court under section 91 nor the Recovery Officer under section 101 of 1960 Act will have the jurisdiction to entertain an application from a Co-operative Bank for recovery of debts due to it. 8. It is further submitted that the 1993 Act defines the term ""Bank"" to mean a banking company. It also defines the term ""the banking company"" to mean a banking company as defined in Clause (c) of section 5 of the 1949 Act. By referring to the provisions of section 56 of the 1949 Act it is submitted that a Co-operative Bank is included in the definition of the term ""banking company"" and therefore the provisions of the 1993 Act are applicable to a Co-operative Bank also. 9. On behalf of the petitioners reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Union of India and another v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and others)2, 2002(4) S.C.C. 275 , a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India)3, 1970(1) S.C.C. 248 , a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nagpur and another v. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur and another)4, A.I.R. 1971 Bom. 365, a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (M/s. Unique Butyle Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and others)5, 2003(1) All.M.R. 1196, a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and another)6, 2000(4) S.C.C. 406 . 10. On behalf of the petitioners it was also contended by Shri Naphade that it is only Parliament which by virtue of Entry 45 of List-I is competent to make law in that regard, the legislature of the State can not make a law in that regard and therefore the section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and section 101 of the 1960 Act in so far as it permits the Co-operative Bank to apply to the Co-operative Court and the Recovery Officer for recovery of the debts due to it is inoperative to that extent, whether or not the provisions of the 1993 Act make a forum available to that Co-operative Bank for recovery of its dues or not. It may be pointed out her that under the 1993 Act an application can be made to the Tribunal only if the amount of debts due to the bank is in excess of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh only), and therefore, in fact, there is no forum available except section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act and section 101 of that Act to the Co-operative Bank incorporated under the 1960 Act for making applications for recovery of debts due to it, which are of an amount less than Rs. 10,00,000/- except, probably, filing civil suits for a decree against the borrower. 11. On behalf of the petitioners it was also contended relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Pradip Chandra Parija and others v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and others)7, 2000(1) S.C.C. 1 that the learned Single Judge was not justified in referring the matter to the Full Bench as the judgment in Shamrao Vithal Banks case is that of a Division Bench. But at this juncture itself it may be pointed out that this contention need not be considered by us, because even the Division Bench has directed the matters to be placed before the Full Bench and therefore, even assuming that the learned Single Judge has referred the matter to the Full Bench and that he was not justified in so referring, in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench for placing the matters before the Full Bench, in our opinion, this aspect of the matter loses significance. 12. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that section 2(d) of the Act 1993 defines the term ""Bank"" to mean a banking company amongst other things. Section 2(e) defines the term ""banking company"" and lays down that the term ""banking company"" shall have the meaning assigned to it in Clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Clause (c) of section 5 of the 1949 Act defines the term ""banking company"" to mean any company which transacts the business of banking in India. Section 5(d) of the 1949 Act defined in section 3 of the Companies Act 1956 and therefore, it is submitted that a Co-operative Bank is not included in the definition of the term ""banking company"" and therefore it is not a bank within the meaning of the 1993 Act. In so far as the provisions of section 56 of the 1949 Act are concerned, which lay down that throughout the 1949 Act unless the context otherwise requires reference to a banking company or to the company shall be construed as a reference to a Co-operative Bank, it is submitted that it introduces a fiction and it is only because of the fiction introduced by section 56 of the 1949 Act that a Co-operative Bank gets included in the definition of banking company. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajshi Shah and others)8, 2000(3) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)240 : 2000(2) S.C.C. 699 , it is submitted that the fiction created by the 1949 Act is restricted to that Act only and it can not be extended to the 1993 Act and therefore, so far the 1993 Act is concerned, a banking company mean a company incorporated under the Companies Act doing business of banking and not a Co-operative Bank. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (State Bank of Travancore v. Mohammed Mohammed Khan)9, 1981(4) S.C.C. 82 . It may be pointed out here that in the case of State Bank of Travancore the Supreme Court was considering the question whether the State Bank of Travancore, which was the subsidiary bank of the State Bank of India can be termed as a banking company within the meaning of 1949 Act. On behalf of the respondents/banks reliance has also been placed on a judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of (M/s. Phoneix Impex v. State of Rajasthan and others)10, A.I.R. 1998 Rajasthan 100. Incidentally, it may be pointed out that this judgment has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in the case of Shamrao Vithal Bank. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondents/banks on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Assam High Court in the case of (Aman Metrograph (I) Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others)11, 2000(3) Gau.L.R. 143. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents/banks referring to the report of Narasimham Committee that the intention of the Parliament in enacting the 1993 Act was not to make the provisions of that Act applicable to the Co-operative Banks. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Virendra Pal Singh and others v. District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Etah and another)12, 1980(4) S.C.C. 109 it is contended that the legislature of the State while legislating in relation to the Co-operative Societies also has competence to make provisions in relation to the Co-operative Societies who are doing business of banking. It is further submitted that by section 2(c) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Securitisation Act) the term ""bank"" has been defined to mean a banking company as has been done by the provisions of section 2(d) of the 1993 Act, but by Clauses (c), (v) of section 2 of the Securitisation Act, however, has been given to the Central Government to specify by notification other banks for the purpose of that Act and in exercise of that proper by notification dated 28-1-2003, ""Co-operative Bank"" as defined in Clause (cc)(i) of section 5 of 1949 Act has been specified as a bank for the purpose of Securitisation Act and therefore it is submitted that it was not the intention of the legislature to include the Co-operative Banks within the definition of the term ""banking company"" for the purpose of the 1993 Act. 13. It is further submitted that the 2002 Act has been enacted by the Parliament under Entry 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. Section 84 of the 2002 Act provides a forum to all the co-operative societies registered under that Act for settlement of disputes. By that Act, the disputes between the employees of the societies incroporated under that Act and disputes within the meaning of Clause (k) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act have been specifically excluded. Section 84 starts with a non obstante clause and therefore the 2002 Act being a subsequent Act to the 1993 Act, according to the respondents/banks the provisions of section 84 will operate and not the provisions of the 1993 Act in so far as the societies registered under the 2002 Act are concerned. It is submitted that even assuming that 2002 Act to be a general legislation and the 1993 Act to be a special legislation, then also the 2002 Act being a later legislation will prevail and operate and not the 1993 Act. 14. The Advocate appearing for the State Government as also the Advocate General supported the submissions made on behalf of the respondents/banks. 15. To our mind in order to appreciate the controversy it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Article 246 of the Constitution of India. Article 246 of the Constitution reads as under: 246. 14. The Advocate appearing for the State Government as also the Advocate General supported the submissions made on behalf of the respondents/banks. 15. To our mind in order to appreciate the controversy it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Article 246 of the Constitution of India. Article 246 of the Constitution reads as under: 246. Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the legislatures of States.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the ""Union List"") (2) Notwithstanding anything in Clause (3), Parliament and, subject to Clause (1), the legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the ""Concurrent List""). (3) Subject to Clauses (1) and (2), the legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the ""State List""). (4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included (in a State) notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List. 16. It is clear from the perusal of the above quoted article that Clause (1) confers exclusive powers on the Parliament to legislate in relation to matters enumerated in List I of the Seventh Schedule. Clause (1) begins with non obstante clause and it lays down that the Parliament will have the exclusive powers to legislate in relation to the matters enumerated in List I notwithstanding anything contained in Clauses (2) and (3) of Article 246. Clause (3) of Article 246 confers exclusive powers on the legislature of the State to legislate in relation to matters enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule. However, this power of the State legislature is subject to what is contained in Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 246. For the present purpose Entries 43, 44 and 45 of List I are relevant. They read as under:- 43. However, this power of the State legislature is subject to what is contained in Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 246. For the present purpose Entries 43, 44 and 45 of List I are relevant. They read as under:- 43. Incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporation, including banking, insurance and financial Corporations but not including co-operative societies. 44. Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, whether trading or not, with objects not confined to one State, but not including universities. 45. Banking. Entry 43 confers powers on the Parliament to legislate with respect to incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading Corporation including banking corporation, but not the co-operative societies. Entry 44 empowers the Parliament to legislate in relation to incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, whether they are trading corporations or not, but the object of such a corporation should not be restricted to one State. It means that under Entry 44 the Parliament can legislate also in relation to the co-operative societies, the object of which is not confined to one State and Entry 45 confers exclusive powers on the Parliament to legislate in relation to banking. It is an admitted position before us that the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 have been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its powers under Entry 44. They provide for incorporation of co-operative societies, the object of which is not confined to one State. It is also an admitted position before us that the 1949 Act as also the 1993 Act have been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its powers under Entry 45. It is also admitted position before us that 1960 Act has been enacted by the legislature of the State of Maharashtra in exercise of its power under Entry 32, List II, which reads as under:- 32. Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporation, other than those specified in List I, and universities; unincorporated trading, literacy, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; co-operative societies. It is clear from the perusal of Entry 32 in List II that it confers power on the State legislature to make law in relation to incorporation, regulation and winding up of co-operative societies. 17. It is clear from the perusal of Entry 32 in List II that it confers power on the State legislature to make law in relation to incorporation, regulation and winding up of co-operative societies. 17. Now taking up 1960 Act, it is clear from the perusal of the provisions of section 12 that the societies belonging to the classes defined in section 2 can be registered under the 1960 Act. Section 12 also provides for sub-classification of societies in accordance with the provisions of the Rules framed under the 1960 Act. Perusal of section 2 of the 1960 Act shows that so far as the banks are concerned, two classes of banks are specified in section 2, (i) Central Bank and (ii) Co-operative Bank. Sub-section (6) of section 2 defined ""Central Bank"" as follows:- ""Central Bank"" means a Co-operative Bank, the objects of which include the creation of funds to be loaned to other societies; but does not include the primary urban Co-operative Bank. It is clear from sub-section (2) of section 2 that a Central Bank is also a Co-operative Bank. Term ""Co-operative Bank"" has been defined by sub-section (2) of section 10 as under:- ""Co-operative Bank"" means a society which is doing the business of banking as defined in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 and includes any society which is functioning or is to function as (an Agricultural and Rural Development Bank) under Chapter XI; It is clear that a co-operative society which is doing business of banking as defined in Clause (b), of sub-section (1) of section 5 is termed as a ""Co-operative Bank"". The term ""banking"" is defined by section (b) of section 5 of the 1949 Act as under:- ""banking"" means the accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawal by cheque, draft, order or otherwise; It is, thus, clear that a co-operative society doing business of banking can be registered under the provisions of the 1960 Act. So far as the aspect of recovery of dues of a Co-operative Bank is concerned, it is the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 91 and sub-section (1) of section 101 which are relevant. So far as the aspect of recovery of dues of a Co-operative Bank is concerned, it is the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 91 and sub-section (1) of section 101 which are relevant. They read as under:- 91(1) Notwithstanding (anything contained) in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, (elections of the Committee or its officers other than elections of Committees of the specified societies including its officer), conduct of general meetings, management or business of society shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute or by a federal society to which the society is affiliated or by a creditor of the society, (to the Co-operative Court) if both the parties thereto are one or other of the following: (a) a society, its Committee, any past Committee, any past or present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the society, or liquidator of the society; (or the official assignee of a deregistered society); (b) a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or a deceased member of society or a society which is a member of the society (or a person who claims to be a member of the society); (c) a person other than a member of the society, with whom the society has any transactions in respect of which any restrictions or regulations have been imposed, made or prescribed under sections 43, 44 or 45 and any person claiming through such person; (d) a surety of a member, past member or deceased member, or surety of a person other than a member with whom the society has any transactions in respect of which restrictions have been prescribed under section 45, whether such surety or person is or is not a member of the society; (e) any other society, or the liquidator of such a society (or de-registered society or the official assignee of such a de-registered society) 101(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 91, 93 and 98, on an application made by a resource society undertaking the financing of crop and seasonal finance as defined under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 (or advancing loans for other agricultural purposes repayable during a period of not less than eighteen months and not more than five years) for the recovery of arrears of any sum advanced by it to any of its members on account of the financing of crop or seasonal finance (or for other agricultural purposes as aforesaid) or by a crop-protection society for the recovery of the arrears of the initial cost or of any contribution for obtaining services required for crop-protection which may be due from its members or other owners of lands included in the proposal (who may have refused to become members) or by a lift irrigation society for the recovery of arrears of any subscription due from its members for obtaining services required for providing water supply to them, (or by a Taluka or Block level village artisans multi-purpose society advancing loans and arranging for cash credit facilities for artisans for the recovery of arrears of its dues,) (or by a co-operative housing society for the recovery of arrears of its dues, or by a co-operative dairy society advancing loans for the recovery of arrears of any sum advanced by it to any of its members or by an urban co-operative bank for the recovery of arrears of its dues, or by salary-earners co-operative society for the recovery of arrears of its dues, or by a fisheries co-operative society for the recovery of arrears of its dues), (or by any such society or class of societies, as the State Government may, from time to time, notify in the Official Gazette, for the recovery of any sum advanced to, or any subscription or any other amount due from, the members of the society or class of societies so notified;) and on the society concerned furnishing a statement of accounts in respect of the arrears, the Registrar may, after making such inquiries as he deems fit, grant a certificate for the recovery of the amount stated therein, to be due as arrears;) Perusal of the above quoted provisions shows that a dispute touching the business of the co-opperative societies can be submitted to the co-operative Court. Thus, a claim of a bank for recovery of its dues will be a dispute touching the business of the bank and therefore, it can be submitted under section 91. Persual of sub-section (1) of section 101 of the 1960 Act shows that an urban co-operative bank can file an application before the authority under section 101 for a recovery certificate for the recovery of its arrears. Perusal of section 101 show that it is only the urban co-operative bank which can obtain recovery certificate under section 101 of the 1960 Act. 18. It appears that though a co-opeartive bank could be registered under the provisions of the 1960 Act, the business of that bank was not controlled or regulated by the Reserve Bank of India. The 1949 Act is a pre-constitutional legislation. The object of that Act was to regulate the business of banking carried on by the banking companies. The Parliament, thereafter, enacted Act 23 of 1965, which came into force with effect from 1-3-1966. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amending Act i.e. Act No. 23 of 1965 reads as under : ""The provisions of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, are not now applicable to or in relation to co-operative banks. The deposits and working funds of co-operative banks are now so large that the extension of more important provisions of the banking Companies Act, 1949 (and of certain other allied provisions of Reserve Bank of India, 1934) to these banks will be in the public interest. The Bill seeks accordingly to extend to the State Co-operative Banks, the Central Co-operative Banks and the more important primary non-agricultural co-operative banks certain provisions of the existing Central Laws which are relatable to banking.” By that Act the present section 3 was incorporated in the year 1949 Act. Section 3 of the 1949 Act reads as under : 3. Act to apply to co-operative societies in certain cases.—Nothing in this Act shall apply to- (a) a primary agricultural credit society; (b) a co-operative land mortgage bank; and (c) any other co-operative society, except in the manner and to the extent specified in Part V. Part V was incorporated, which contains section 56. Heading of section 56 incorporated by Act 23 of 1965 is “Act to apply to co-operative societies subject to modifications”. Heading of section 56 incorporated by Act 23 of 1965 is “Act to apply to co-operative societies subject to modifications”. It further lays down as under : The provisions of this Act, as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to, co-operative societies as they apply to, or in relation to banking companies subject to the following modifications,.... Thus, by Act 23 of 1996 the provisions of the 1949 Act were made applicable to the Co-operative banks subject to certain modifications which were specified in Part V. By virtue of the provisions of section 56(o), it was provided that no Co-operative Society shall carry on banking business unless it is a primary credit society or it is a Co-operative Bank and holds a license issued in that behalf by the Reserve Bank of India. In other words, with effect from 1-3-1996 the banking business carried on by the Co-operative Banks was regulated by the provisions of the 1949 Act. Perusal of the provisions of the 1949 Act shows that almost all the aspects of banking business were regulated by that Act, but there was no provision made in relation to recovery of dues of the banks. However, as noted above, so far as the Co-operative Banks are concerned, section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and section 101 of the 1960 Act were available and the banks were approaching those forums for recovery of their dues. In so far as Multi-State Co-operative Societies are concerned, though the Parliament enacted Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act in 1984 and section 74 of that Act made provision for settlement of disputes which provided for recovery of dues by the Co-operative Societies including the Co-operative Bank registered under the Multi-state Co-operative Societies Act, because the provisions of section 74 of the 1984 Act were stayed by this Court, the forum provided by that Act was not really available to the Co-operative Societies registered under the 1984 Act. So far as other Banks are concerned, they had to file civil suits for the recovery of their dues. It appears that the Multi-State Co-operative Societies were also applying for recovery certificates under section 101 of the 1960 Act and those certificates were granted in their favour because those societies were also registered under the 1960 Act. So far as other Banks are concerned, they had to file civil suits for the recovery of their dues. It appears that the Multi-State Co-operative Societies were also applying for recovery certificates under section 101 of the 1960 Act and those certificates were granted in their favour because those societies were also registered under the 1960 Act. In this background, the Parliament in the year 1993 enacted the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. That Act came into force from 24-6-1993. Provisions of sub-section (4) of section 1 of that Act is relevant. It reads as under:- The provisions of this Act shall not apply where the amount of debt due to any bank or financial institution or to a consortium of banks or financial institutions is less than ten lakh rupees or such other amount, being not less than one lakh rupees, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify. It is clear that the provisions of the Act are applicable only if the debt due to the bank or financial institution is in excess of Rs. 10,00,000/- or a sum in excess of Rs. 10,00,000/- which is notified by the Central Government. The preamble of that Act provides that the Act has been enacted to establish Tribunals for expeditious adjudication of recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. The term “bank” is defined by section 2(d), which reads as under:- “bank” means-