Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 279 (HP)

BHAG SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-09-15

K.C.SOOD

body2003
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.: - Respondent No. 6, H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. is a Cooperative Society registered under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as "The Act". This Bank has a Branch at New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur at Delhi. 2. In the year 1992-93, the petitioner M/s Bhag Singh and Sonus and Gurjeet Singh became a members of the Society and opened a current account with the Banks Branch at Azadpur. Overdraft Facilities were extended to the petitioner. The amount due from the petitioner to the Bank remained unpaid. The Bank approached the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies for initiation of arbitration proceedings for the recovery of the amount due to it under Section 72 and 73 of the Act. 3. Section 72(1) provides for the dispute to be referred for arbitration Sub-section 2(a) of Section 72 stipulates that a claim by a surety for any debt or demand due to it from a member or any employee, or the nominee, heir or legal representatives of a deceased member or an employee whether such debt or demand be admitted or not shall be deemed to be dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society within the meaning of Section 72(1) of the Act. Section 73 provides the settlement of the dispute either by the Registrar himself or by the arbitrator appointed by him. Section 75 stipulates that the award of the arbitrator or a decision by the Registrar or the person invested with the power to decide disputes under Section 73 of the Act, shall be final and not questionable in any civil or revenue Court. 4. The Arbitrator made his awards on July 7, 1995 and February 16, 1996, respectively, against the petitioner. The petitioner were saddled with, a liability of rupees 6,13,216.51 paise with interest at the rate of 25% and 6,81,634.30 paise with interest at the rate of 25% per annum. 5. Dis-satisfied, the petitioner carried an appeal to the Government under Section 93 of the Act, which was dismissed on October 30,1999. Aggrieved, the petitioner is in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 6. The only contention raised by Mr. 5. Dis-satisfied, the petitioner carried an appeal to the Government under Section 93 of the Act, which was dismissed on October 30,1999. Aggrieved, the petitioner is in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 6. The only contention raised by Mr. Khidta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent Bank is deemed to be registered in Delhi and, therefore, the law relating to the Cooperative Societies in Delhi is applicable and not the Act. Mr. Khidta relying upon The Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Kasargode Panduranga Mallya, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1248 submits that as the objects of the respondent Bank were not confined to Himachal Pradesh and it is hot disputed that its commercial activities were spread in Delhi, therefore, under Section 2 of the Multi Unit Cooperative Societies Act, 1942 (Central Act for short), the respondent Bank would be deemed to have been registered in Delhi and in view of the provision of subsection (2) and (3) of Section 2 of the Central Act, the law relating to the Cooperative Societies in force in Delhi is applicable. The dispute in question in the circumstances was not referable to an Arbitrator under Section 72 of the Act. 7. In Kasargode Panduranga Mallya, the appellant was a Cooperative Society registered in Bombay under the Bombay Act. The Head office of the Society was in Bombay and Branch at Mangalore. Appellant made a claim under Section 54 of the Bombay Act in respect of a transaction, which took place in Mangalore against the respondent who was resident of Kasargode, and a member of the appellant Society. Both these places were in Madras presidency at the relevant time. The Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Society, Bombay gave an award regarding a claim. When the award was sought to be executed, an objection was raised by the respondent that Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Ltd. had no jurisdiction to make the award. The objection was up held by the Executing Court. The execution petition was dismissed. The decision was affirmed in appeal by the High Court. The matter landed up in the Supreme Court. When the award was sought to be executed, an objection was raised by the respondent that Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Ltd. had no jurisdiction to make the award. The objection was up held by the Executing Court. The execution petition was dismissed. The decision was affirmed in appeal by the High Court. The matter landed up in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court reading the provision of Section 2 of the Central Act held that as the object of the appellant Society were not confined to one State, therefore, it was governed by the provisions of the Central Act and the reading of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Central Act makes it clear that if the objects of the Cooperative Society registered in a State "A" extends to State "B", Society shall be deemed to be registered in State "B" under the law in force in State "B" relating to Cooperative Societies. The deemed registration in State "B" would be for the purposes of registration, control and dissolution. In these matters, Society was to be subjected to law relating to Cooperative Society in State "B". 8. The ratio of Shamrao Vithal, is not available to the petitioner. I notice that the Central Act was repealed and replaced by Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to "1984 Act". "Section 110 of 1984 Act reads: "110. Repeal- the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, is hereby repealed". 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any provision in 1984 Act similar to section 2 the Central Act. In fact, Section 6 of 1984 Act specifically provides for the registration of Multi State Cooperative Society under an application to the Central Registrar. : 10. The petitioner admittedly were Members of the Society and therefore, in the absence of any other law, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act under which the respondent Bank is registered. Therefore, the reference of the dispute relating to the claim to the Society against the petitioners for the debt to an Arbitrator under Section 73 of the Act and decision thereof by the Registrar cannot be said to be illegal or dehors the provisions of the Act. 11. No other point is urged. 12. In result, the petition fails and is dismissed. 13. No costs.