JUDGMENT:- This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiff whose suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.104 of 1991 for recovery of Rs.4,12,000/- was dismissed by 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandedon 14.07.1994 on the ground that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as below:- The respondents are Chairman and Manager of a factory run by Shri. Shankarrao Chavan P.V.C. Pipe Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The plaintiff/appellant has approached the Court with a case that he had agreed to carry out construction of excavation, brick lying, plastering, concreting, carpentry, joinder of steel and iron work, drainage work, water supply, sanitary fitting etc. of factory building and other constructions at the site of the defendant factory. An advance of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the defendant - Cooperative Society to the plaintiff for above said construction work and said amount was to be adjusted towards bill of work done. According to the plaintiff, defendant did not co-operate in performance of the work and the work could not be completed. Defendant - Co-operative Society illegally withdrew the work from the plaintiff. Due to the withdrawal of work, the plaintiff appellant suffered loss and therefore the suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.4,12,000/- . 3. The defendant/respondent Society filed written statement at Exh.32 and amongst other contentions, it objected to the tenability of the suit stating that since the defendant is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the suit without notice under Section 164 of the said Act is barred. 4. The learned Civil Judge framed preliminary issue whether the suit is maintainable for want of notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the answer was in the negative. Since it is held that the suit is not maintainable, it is dismissed. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal The only point which arises for out consideration is as under: "Whether the suit is not maintainable without Notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960?" 5. Heard Adv. Shri. B.A. Darak for the appellant and Adv. Shri P.S. Agarwal for the respondents. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal The only point which arises for out consideration is as under: "Whether the suit is not maintainable without Notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960?" 5. Heard Adv. Shri. B.A. Darak for the appellant and Adv. Shri P.S. Agarwal for the respondents. Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" is as follows:- "164. Notice necessary in suits:- No suit shall be instituted against a society, or any of its officers, in respect of any act touching the business of the society, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims, and the plaintiff shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left." 6. The words "touching the business of the society" also appear in Section 91 of the Act, wherein phrase used is "in dispute touching business of society". Section 91(1) is as follows:- "91. Disputes- (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 the elections of committees of the specified societies including its officers, conduct of general meetings, management or business of a 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 credit of the society, to a Co-operative Court if both the parties thereto are one or other of the following:- (a)……………" 7. Both sides cited several authorities. The earliest case cited is Farkhundali Nannhay Vs. V.B. Potdar and another, AIR 1962 Bombay 162. The Full Bench of this Court was considering Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and phrase "touching the business of society" was considered. It was observed that nature of business, which a society does, is to be ascertained from the objects of the society. But whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects can be said to be part of its business. It was observed that nature of business, which a society does, is to be ascertained from the objects of the society. But whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects can be said to be part of its business. The word "touching" is also very wide and would include any matter which relates to, concerns or affects the business of the society. In that case it is held that payment of wages of any sum due to employees under law is therefore part of the business of the society. The copy of object or bye-laws of the defendant - Society is not produced in this case to know what is scope of business of the society. 8. In the present case business of defendant/society, as its name discloses, can be said to be production and sale of P.V.C. pipes. In para 7 of the Trial Court's judgment while dealing with this aspect, it is observed that the contract of defendant/society with the appellant/plaintiff was regarding construction of shed for the factory and other construction work, Same cannot be said to be business of the society as it is not business of the society to do construction of sheds and other structures. In para 9 of the Trial Court's judgment it is observed that undisputedly the construction work in question was entrusted by the defendant society to the plaintiff for construction and erection of shed, for installing machinery and starting factory and business of the society and therefore he held that notice under Section 164 of the Act was required. However, agreement at Exh.A/1 relates to only construction of factory building and other structures. It nowhere speaks of installation of machinery or starting of factory or business. The contract strictly relates to work of building and construction. 9. Second case cited is Dec can Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. M/ s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain and others, AIR 1969 S.C. 1320 . Said case is under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In that case this observed in paras 17, 18 & 22 as under:- "17 It is clear that the word "business" in this context does not mean affairs of a society because election of office-bearers, conduct of general meetings and management of a society would be treated as affairs of a society. In that case this observed in paras 17, 18 & 22 as under:- "17 It is clear that the word "business" in this context does not mean affairs of a society because election of office-bearers, conduct of general meetings and management of a society would be treated as affairs of a society. In this sub-section the word "business" has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act and the Rules and its bye-laws. 18. The question arises whether the dispute touching the assets of a society would be a dispute touching the business of a society. This would depend on the nature of the society and the rules and bye-laws governing it. Ordinarily, if a society owns buildings and lets out parts of buildings which it does not require for its own purpose it cannot be said that letting out of those parts is a part of the business of the society. But it may be that it is the business of a society to construct and buy houses and let them out to its members. In that case letting out property may be part of its business. In this case, the society is a cooperative bank and ordinarily a cooperative bank cannot be said to be engaged in business when it lets out properties owned by it. 22. While we agree that the nature of business which a society does can be ascertained from the objects of the society, it is difficult to subscribe to the proposition that whatever the society does or it necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects can be said to be part of its business. We however, agree that the word "touching" is very wide and would include any matter which relates to or concerns the business of a society but we are doubtful whether the word "affects" should also be used in defining the scope of the word "touching"." 10. Third case cited is Satpal singh Arora Vs. Santdas Prabhudas Malkaui, 1973 Mh.L.J. 292. In that case it is observed that by-laws of a society can be referred to ascertain object of the society. Third case cited is Satpal singh Arora Vs. Santdas Prabhudas Malkaui, 1973 Mh.L.J. 292. In that case it is observed that by-laws of a society can be referred to ascertain object of the society. In paras 12 and 13 it is mentioned that the word "business" has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act and the Rules and its bye-laws. There is nothing on record to show that the present respondent society has business of construction activity or construction of actory building and other structures. 11. The next case cited is of our High Mh.L.J. 908, a housing society was formed with the object of constructing buildings and allotting them to members. The member allowing licensee to occupy allotted building. Dispute in their member and licensee after termination of license is held to be one not touching business of the society and it is held that the dispute is covered by Section 91 though it may ultimately "affect" business of the Society if license is given in contravention of rules or bye laws of Society. 12. In the case of Mohan Meakin Limited, Bombay Vs. The Pravara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Pravaranagar, Ahmednagar, 1987 Mh.L.J. 503, there was question of violation of Trademark and it was observed that one of the objects of the Society in addition to manufacturer of sugar was the manufacture of complementary products and in that behalf to erect the necessary machinery. The alcoholic products manufactured out of molasses by the defendant co-operative society was a complementary product and the said business fairly and squarely fell within the ambit of the Bye-laws of the society. Therefore, it is held that when suit is filed under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act for violation of Trademark "Black Knight", notice under Section 164 of the Act is mandatory and in absence of such notice, suit is not maintainable. It is the case of society which runs business of manufacture of liquor and to sell it. Dispute was touching the business of the society. 13. In the case of Belganda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Bhoras Vs. Keshav Rajaram PatH, 1994 Mh.L.J. 1756, the sugar factory invited tenders for construction of godown. It is the case of society which runs business of manufacture of liquor and to sell it. Dispute was touching the business of the society. 13. In the case of Belganda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Bhoras Vs. Keshav Rajaram PatH, 1994 Mh.L.J. 1756, the sugar factory invited tenders for construction of godown. On certain disputes arising between the sugar factory and the contractor-member, the factory filed dispute in the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Act for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,64,71l/-. The contractor-member filed objection contending that the Co-operative Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, as the contract had not been taken by him in his capacity as a member of the society. The Co-operative Court rejected the objection but in Revision, the Appellate Court upheld the objection on the ground that the dispute as regards the contract fell under common law. The Single Bench of this Court held that such dispute does not fall within jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court and Civil Court has jurisdiction. The Court referred to the case of D.M. Co-op. Bank (supra). In para 14 following observations are made:- "14. The argument advanced by Mr. Dhorde, appears attractive but, it is to be borne in mind that in the D.M. Co-operative Bank's case (supra), the Supreme Court had made a distinction between works done to serve the object of the society and works done in pursuance of the business of the Society. One can understand that there could be no manufacture of sugar if there was no factory building and no place for machinery. It can also be appreciated that the business of manufacturing sugar and selling it at an advantageous price could not be done unless there was a godown but, then, it was not the business of the society to erect such things. The business of the society is, in fact, to manufacture the sugar, to sell it in advantageous manner. The ancillary provisions made for facilitating the production of sugar and selling it advantageously, may be an affair relating to the management of the society, but it is neither the business of the society and it may not, probably, amount to even the management of the society nor it is business for the purposes of the expression used in Section 91(1) of the Act. In any event, such a view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the D.M. Co-operative Bank's case (supra)." 14. In the case of Supra that Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Span Builders and anr., 2002(3) Mh.L.J. 837 , this Court has occasion to consider Section 164 of the Act. In that case the object of the Co-operative Housing Society was to construct flats on plot in question taken on lease, for allotment to members of society for their authorised use. The original plaintiffs who instituted Special Civil Suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.ll,97,117/- together with interest adverted to the two agreements dated 12th September, 1997 and 30th December, 1998 by which the contract for the construction of the flats was awarded to the respondents. The case of the respondent was that the bills which were raised by them upon the society for the work of construction were kept pending and the payment of the bills was unduly delayed. The respondents stated that in the circumstances, it had become impossible for them to complete the contractual work and that they had in fact decided to abandon the contracts. Considering object of the Cooperative Society, which was to construct flat, it was held that the dispute was touching the business of the society. In this case, as initially stated, business of the respondent Society is not to construct factory and other structures, contract of which was given to the plaintiff appellant. It is observed in para 8 that the expression "touching the business of the society", which is employed in section 164 has also been used in Section 91 of the Act. Section 91, it would be material to note falls in Chapter IX of the Act, which is entitled "Statement of Disputes". After referring to the case of D.M. Co-operative Bank (supra). in para 9 it is observed that the basic principle which has been formulated by the Supreme Court is whether a particular dispute touches the business of the society would depend upon the nature of the society and the rules and byelaws governing it. So, ultimately it is nature of the society as evidenced by its object and byelaws which have to be taken into consideration. 15. In the case of Solapur Taluka Khadi Gramodyog Utpadak Sahakari Society Vs. So, ultimately it is nature of the society as evidenced by its object and byelaws which have to be taken into consideration. 15. In the case of Solapur Taluka Khadi Gramodyog Utpadak Sahakari Society Vs. Dattatraya Shankarrao Kondewar and others, 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 24 : [2005(1) ALL MR 5561, the suit filed against the Society on the ground of bona fide requirement and default by its landlord. The society was carrying out business of trading in the shop premises in question. It was held that no notice under Section 164 of the Cooperative Societies Act is required, as the suit cannot be said to be suit in respect of an act touching business of the society. The case of n.M. Co-op. Bank (Supra) and other cases were referred to and in para 7 it is observed that it cannot be doubted that everything that a society does for the purpose of achieving its objects cannot be regarded as its business. Taking a premises on rent by a society for the purpose of attaining its objects and carrying its business cannot per se be regarded as a business of the society. On similar lines it can be said that though object and business of the society was to manufacture P.V.C. pipes and sell them, it cannot be said that construction of factory for manufacturing of P.V.C. pipes or making allied construction is the business of the respondent society. 16. So relying law laid down in cases of Solapur Taluka Khadi Gramodyog and Belganda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (Supra) and considering observations made by the Supreme Court in various authorities as referred to above, in my opinion, the Trial Court has committed error in holding that the suit is bad for non-issuance of notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The suit is maintainable in absence of such notice and therefore this appeal is allowed. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned II Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, is set aside. Said Court is directed to restore the suit to file, frame all issues and proceed to decide the suit according to law. Appeal allowed.