JUDGMENT : As per Ajit Singh, J. :- This order shall govern the disposal of Writ Petition Nos. 272, 274, 275 and 277. all of 2010. These writ petitions are directed against the common judgment dated 29-6-2009 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal (in short "the Tribunal") whereby it has dismissed the petitioner's First Appeal Nos. 156, 157, 177 and 178, all of 2008. 2. According to the petitioner, it is a State Level Co-operative Federation and is registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short "the Act"). It claims to be involved in the procurement and trade of different minor forest produce with an object to provide adequate monetary benefits to tribals through primary co-operative societies. The petitioner states that the forest produce is insured with respondent No. 1-Insurance Company to prevent loss and is also stored in the godown. The petitioner further stated that on 28-5-2008 there was an incident of fire in the godown as a result of which it suffered a loss of about Rs. 6,06,031.90 but the Insurance Company paid only Rs. 2,57,958/-against the total claim. Aggrieved, the petitioner raised a dispute against the Insurance Company by filing applications under Section 64 of the Act before the Joint Registrar. The applications were registered as Case No. 64-63/2003. But the Joint Registrar vide order dated 27-3-2008 held that the transaction between the petitioner and Insurance Company did not constitute a business within the meaning of Section 64 and hence the disput was not maintainable. The petitioner challenged the order dated 27-3-2008 in First Appeal Nos. 156, 157, 177 and 178 of 2008 before the Tribunal and all of them have been dismissed by the common impugned judgment dated 29-6-2009. 3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that since its transaction with the Insurance Company constituted a business within the meaning of Section 64 of the Act, the Joint Registrar and the Tribunal have committed an illegality in holding that the dispute was not maintainable. The respective learned Counsel for Insurance Companies, in reply, have defended the order and judgment passed by the Joint Registrar and Tribunal. 4. The sole question which calls for our consideration is whether the dispute raised by the petitioner against the Insurance Company is maintainable under section 64 of the Act. 5. Section 64 of the Act deals with the disputes. 4. The sole question which calls for our consideration is whether the dispute raised by the petitioner against the Insurance Company is maintainable under section 64 of the Act. 5. Section 64 of the Act deals with the disputes. It reads as under :- "64. Disputes.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business, or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are among the following :- (a) a society, its Board of Directors, any past Board of Directors, any past or present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or a nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased agent or deceased servant of the society, or the liquidator of the society; (b) a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of a society or of a society which is a member of the society; (c) a person other than a member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions and any person claiming through such a person; (d) a surety of a member, past member or deceased member or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; (e) any other society or the liquidator of such a society; and (f) a creditor of a society." The word 'business' is a word of wide import. It has no definite meaning (See : Mahesh Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation, AIR 1993 SC 935 , 939). The word 'business' is also of common use which according to Lord Diplock is an "etymological chameleon; it suits its meaning to the context in which it is found" (See : Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh 13th Edition Page 493). Its meaning, therefore, has to be understood in accordance with the context. The petitioner is involved in the procurement and trade of different minor forest produce with an object to provide monetary benefits to tribals through primary co-operative societies. Its meaning, therefore, has to be understood in accordance with the context. The petitioner is involved in the procurement and trade of different minor forest produce with an object to provide monetary benefits to tribals through primary co-operative societies. It is in furtherance of this object the minor forest produce is stored in the godown and insured with the Insurance Company. The transaction of insurance with the Insurance Company in this context is definitely in furtherance of the business of petitioner to prevent loss to the minor forest produce. The dispute is between the petitioner and Insurance Company. As the transaction with the Insurance Company is a part of the business transaction of the petitioner, the dispute clearly falls under the above quoted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act and was triable by the Registrar. We do not agree with the order dated 27-3-2008 and judgment dated 29-6-2009 passed by the Joint Registrar and Tribunal respectively. We accordingly quash the order and judgment and remand the matters to the Joint Registrar/Registrar to decide them on merits. 6. The petitions are allowed but with no costs.