Section 84 of the Multi - State Act would apply to cases which are to be instituted under the said Act. It does not apply to cases which have already been instituted another Act including theMCS Act. The section does not even provide for a transfer of cases filed under the MCS Act to the authorities/arbitration provided for therein. If the legislature intended annuling all proceedings under the MCS Act and the re-presentation/filing thereof under section 84 of the Multi - State Actthe same would have been provided for expressly. As it is there is not even a suggestion to this effect in either enactment. To accept the respondents submission would be reading into the enactments consequences of a wide and crucial nature which cannot be done.
Print Page
Bombay High Court
The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank ... vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009
Bench: S.J. Vazifdar
Citation;2009(4)ALLMR72,2009(4)BOMCR232,2009(4)MHLJ929
DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2009.
1. In 1964 the petitioner was registered under the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). On 11.1.2007 the petitioner was converted into a multi State co-operative society.
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the Assistant Registrar co-operative societies and the Divisional Joint Registrar co-operative societies respectively under the MCS Act.
Respondent no.4, Mrs.Seema Ramesh Gharage is the principal debtor who had availed of facilities from the petitioner.
Original respondent no.5 and respondent nos.6 and 7 are sureties in respect of the loan advanced by the petitioner to respondent no
4. Respondent nos. 5(a) to (d) are the heirs of original respondent no.5.
2. By an order dated 11.7.2006 the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, respondent no.2 dismissed the petitioners application for a recovery certificate under section 101 of the MCS Act. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision application under section 154 of the MCS Act. This application was rejected by the impugned order. By the impugned order dated 14.8.2008 the Divisional Joint Registrar, respondent no. 3 held that he is not empowered to entertain and decide matters pertaining to any multi State co-operative society. He thereforedismissed the petitioners application for revision under section 154 of the MCS Act for want of jurisdiction. This order was based on a judgment of a Division Bench of this court which I will refer to later.
3. The case in a nutshell is this. In 1964 the petitioner was registered under the MCS Act. During the subsistence of this registration the petitioner filed recovery proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act against respondent nos. 4 to 7 and the same having been rejected by the second respondent, the petitioner filed an application for review under section 154 of that Act. However on 11.1.2007 during the pendency of the revision application, the petitioner was converted into a multi State co-operative society within the meaning of the expression in the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act,2002 (Multi-State Act). Thereupon the petitioner stood registered under the Multi-State Act and its registration under the MCS Act was cancelled. In view thereof respondents no 3 rejected the petitioners revision application on the ground that the authorities under the MCS Act did not have jurisdiction to decide proceedings in respect of societies registered under the Multi-State Act.
4. In terms of a sanction letter dated 10.4.2001 the petitioner granted respondent no.4 a cash credit facility of Rs.50,00,000. To secure the due repayment of the said loan respondents no.4 hypothecated various goods in favour of the petitioner ; Respondent nos.4 and 7 executed a memorandum of equitable mortgage in respect of certain immovable properties and Respondent nos.4 to 7 also executed a demand promissory note and other documents undertaking the responsibility to repay the said money jointly and/or severally.
On 10.11.2004 the petitioner filed recovery proceedings under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act as respondent nos.4 to 7 failed and neglected to repay the loan despite repeated demands. Respondent no.2, the Assistant Registrar by an order and judgement dated 11.7.2006 rejected the application. As the only question raised in this petition is one of jurisdiction it is not necessary to consider the grounds on which this judgement was based.
On 11.9.2006 the petitioner filed an application for review under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
On 11.1.2007 the petitioner was converted into a multi-
State co-operative society within the meaning of that expression in The Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This was pursuant to section 22 of the Multi-State Act.
On 14.8.2008 respondents no. 3 passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioners application for review on the ground that the petitioner having been converted into a multi-
State co-operative society prior to the date of the judgement he had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the review application which was filed under the MCS Act.
5. The following question therefore falls for consideration:-
Whether the Revisionary Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 filed by a society registered under that Act when the applications under sections 101 and 154 were filed but was converted into a multi-State co-
operative society during the pendency of the application for revision whereupon the applicant was registered under the multi-
State Co-operative Societies Act and its registration under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was cancelled.
6. Section 154 of the MCS Act reads as under :-
"154. Revisionary powers of State Government and Registrar.- The State Government or the Registrar, suo motu or on an application, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceedings of any matter, other than those referred to in sub-section (9) of section 149, where any decision or order has been passed by any subordinate officer, and no appeal lies against such decision or order, for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order, and as to the regularity of such proceedings, if in any case, it appears to the State Government, or the Registrar, that any decision or order so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may, after giving the person affected thereby an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as to it or him may seem just.
(2) Under this section, the revision shall lie to the State Government if the decision or order is passed by the Registrar, the Additional Registrar or a Joint Registrar, and to the Registrar if passed by any other officer.
(2A) No application for revision shall be entertained against the recovery certificate issued by the Registrar under section 101 unless the applicant deposits with the concerned society, fifty percent, amount of the total amount of recoverable dues.
(3) No application for revision shall be entertained, if made after two months of the date of communication of the decision or order. The revisional authority may entertain any such application made after such period, if the applicant satisfies it that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.
(4) The State Government may, by order, direct that the powers conferred on it by this section shall, in such circumstances and under such conditions if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercised also by an officer of the rank of Secretary to Government."
Section 22 of the Multi State Co-Operative Societies Act, 2002 reads as under :-
22. Conversion of a co-operative society into a multi-State co-operative society.--
(1) A co-operative society may, by an amend- ment of its bye-laws, extend its jurisdiction and convert itself into a multi-State co-operative soci- ety :
Provided that no such amendment of bye-laws of a co-operative society shall be valid unless it has been registered by the Central Registrar.
(2) (a) Every proposal for such amendment of bye-laws shall be forwarded to the Central Registrar in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (4) ofSection 11.
(b) If the Central Registrar, after consulting the Registrars of Co-operative Societies of the States concerned, has satisfied himself that such amendment--
(i) fulfils the requirements of the members being from more than one State;
(ii) is in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 11, he may regis- ter the amendment within a period of six months from the date of receipt thereof by him :
Provided that no co-operative society shall be deemed to have been converted into a multi- State co-operative society on any ground whatsoever unless such society is registered as a multi-State co-operative society.
(3) The Central Registrar shall forward to the co-operative society a copy of the registered amendment together with a certificate signed by him and such certificate shall be conclusive evi- dence that the amendment has been registered.
(4) Where the Central Registrar refuses to regis-
ter an amendment of the bye-laws of a co-opera- tive society, he shall communicate the order of re- fusal together with the reasons therefor to the society in the manner prescribed within seven days from the date of refusal.
(5) (a) Once the amendment of bye-laws has been registered by the Central Registrar, the co-operative society shall, as from the date of registration of amendment, become a multi-State co-operative society.
(b) The Central Registrar shall forward to the co-operative society a certificate signed by him to the effect that such society has been registered as a multi-State co-operative society under this Act and also forward a copy of the same to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies of the State concerned.
(c) The Registrar of Co-operative Societies referred to in clause (b) shall thereupon make an order directing that the society had, as from the date of registration by the Central Registrar, ceased to be a society under the law relating to co-operative societies in force in that State."
7. It is settled law that the right of appeal vests in the par-
ties at the date of the suit and is governed by the law prevailing at that time and the date of the decree or of the filing of the appeal does not affect this right unless some subsequent enactment takes away this right expressly or by necessary intendment.
The reliance on behalf of the petitioners on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Garikapati Veer-
aya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, 1957 SCR 488 is well founded. Af-
ter referring to a long line of judgements of various courts the Supreme Court summarized its conclusions as under :-
"23. From the decisions cited above the following principles clearly emerge:
(i) That the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be regarded as one legal proceeding.
(ii) The right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right.
(iii) The institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit.
(iv) The right of appeal is a vested right and such a right to enter the superior court accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences and although it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced such right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding and not by the law that prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of the filing of the appeal.
(v) This vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it so pro-
vides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise."
I find it unnecessary to deal in any detail with the judgements referred to in the above judgement as the Supreme Court dealt with each of them in considerable detail including by analyzing the facts therein. There are however certain observations in the judgement which I will refer to in addition to the conclusions as summarized in paragraph 23 quoted above.
The main, leading judgement referred to by the Supreme Court was the judgement of the Privy Council in Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd. Versus Irving 1905 AC 369. In paragraph 4 the Supreme Court cited with the approval the observations of the Privy Council that there is no difference between abolishing an appeal altogether and transferring the appeal to a new tribunal. In either case, it was held, there is an interference with the existing rights contrary to the well-known general principle that statues are not to be held to act retrospectively unless a clear intention to that effect is manifested.
In paragraph 11 the Supreme Court approved the judgement of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Daivanayaga Reddiyar vs Renukambai Ammal ILR 50 Woodruff 857 = AIR 1927 Madras 977 wherein it was held that this rule would also apply to a mere fiscal enactment. The Full Bench rejected as untenable the argument that when the right is taken away by a subsequent alteration in a mere fiscal enactment, the case is not the same as when the right depends on substantive law.
In paragraph 12 the Supreme Court approved the judgement of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Singha versus Shanker Dayal AIR 1928 Allahabad 437. The Full Bench answered the reference by holding that the right to appeal to the Court of the District Judge was governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit, and not by the law thatprevailed at the date of its decision, or at the date of the filing of the appeal.
In paragraph at 17 of the judgement the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a Special Bench of the Madras High Court In re,Vasudeva Samiar AIR 1929 Madras 381 where it was held that the institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all appeals then in force are preserved to it through the rest of its career, unless the legislation has either abolished the court to which an appeal then lay or has expressly or by necessary intendment given the Act a retrospective effect.
8. I would extend to revisions the above principles applicable to appeals. I am conscious of the fact that there are essential and important differences between an appeal and a revision. That however is in the nature of the proceedings. The scope for interference in an appeal is wider than the scope for interference in a revision application.
I would however consider the similarities to be of greater significance, importance and relevance than the dissimilarities between an appeal and a revision while considering the question that falls for consideration in this case. What is important to note is that both, an appeal and a revision, entitle a party to challenge the judgement of a subordinate authority or court before a superior authority or court. A revision and an appeal provide the means to an aggrieved party to obtain rectification of orders of subordinate authorities or courts. A party may be entitled to invoke the appellate jurisdiction as a matter of right. The exercise of revisionary jurisdiction however is often only a matter of discretion of the revisionary authority. That however to my mind would make no difference either. Where a statue provides a revision it entitles the party to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of the authority or court. That the court or authority may or may not exercise its revisionary jurisdiction in the exercise of its discretion is another matter altogether. What is important is that the party is entitled to approach the revisionary authority and seek the exercise of its discretion in its favour to redress what it considers to be a wrong order passed by the subordinate authority or court. This essential and crucial feature common to an appeal and a revision persuade me to apply the principles applicable to appeals to revisions as well.
9. Often a revision is permissible where no appeal lies against an order. The legislature in such cases confers upon the aggrieved party a right to challenge the order in revision albeit, to a limited extent and in a limited manner. If the provision for revision is by an amendment deleted it would certainly affect a party who had prior thereto a right to challenge the order in revision.
10. The next question then is whether either the MCS Act or the Multi - State Act either expressly or by necessary indendment make section 154 of the MCS Act inapplicable qua proceedings instituted by societies which were subsequently converted into Multi - State Co-operative Societies. I think not. The proceedings were admittedly filed before a court of competent jurisdiction. There is nothing in either of the Acts which expressly bars the jurisdiction of the court upon the conversion of the petitioner as a Multi - State Co-operative Society. Nor is there anything which leads to that conclusion by necessary intendment.
The provisions of the said Act in fact indicate that the courts and authorities under the MCS Act continued to have jurisdiction to decide matters which were validly filed before them prior to the conversion of the societies registered under the Multi - State Act.
Further neither of the Acts has abolished the courts or authorities under the MCS Act.
11. The Multi - State Act and the MCS Act do not contain any provisions for the transfer of pending proceedings under the MCS Act to the authorities constituted under the Multi - State Act.
When the legislature intends transferring pending proceedings pursuant to the enactment of a new law it provides for the same expressly. This has for instance been done in the case of theFamily Courts Act and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutes Act,1993Section 8 of the Family Courts Act 1984 reads as under:-
8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings.-- Where a Family Court has been established for any area, --
(a) no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub-section (1) ofSection 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section;
(b) no magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or powers under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);
(c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
(i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, before any magistrate under the said Code; and
(ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established."
Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutes Act, 1993 reads as under :-
"31. Transfer of pending cases.-- (1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal :
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before any court.
(2) Where any suit or other proceeding stands transferred from any court to a Tribunal under sub-section (1),--
(a) the court shall, as soon as may be after such transfer, forward the records of such suit or other proceeding to the Tribunal; and
(b) the Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit or other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in the case of an application made under Section 19 from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage as the Tribunal may deem fit."
12. There is no provision in the MCS Act or the Multi-State Act similar to section 8 of the Family Courts Act and section 31 of the Recovery of Deaths Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. This is a strong indication that the legislature did not intend affecting pending proceedings upon the conversion of a society into a multi - State co-operative society.
13. There is yet another aspect which militates against a view to the contrary. In this case it is the society that has filed an application for review. The application however may have been filed against a society. If the respondents contentions are to be accepted even in such cases the application for review would be without jurisdiction upon the society being converted into a multi
- State co-operative society. Thus the right of a party would be affected not by any act on its part or the effect of any law upon it but by an act of the opposite party with which it had nothing to do.
I see nothing in the scheme of either of these Acts which warrants an interpretation leading to such a conclusion.
14. In Tirupati Ginning & Pressing Factory Vs. Balaji Ginning & Pressing Industry & ors. (2008) 8 LJSOFT 113 the recovery certificate was applied for by the second defendant Bank under section 101 of the MCS Act on 27.6.2002 and the same was issued on 9.8.2002. The Bank got itself registered under Multi-
State Act after said Act came into force on 19.8.2002. It was not disputed that the proceedings for recovery under section 101 of the MCS Act were initiated and were pending. Respondent no. 1 filed a civil suit for a declaratory relief that the defendants including the bank were not entitled to act in furtherance to the provisions of the MCS Act and for certain other consequential reliefs. It was contended that in view of the registration of the bank under the Multi-State Act the proceedings under the MCS Act were a nullity.
The rights of an auction purchaser were also involved. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of that suit on the ground that no notice under section 164 of the MCS Act was raised. While upholding this contention the learned judge also observed as under :-
"11. Thus, in any case, the recovery was being made as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act according to law as then applicable."
The observations certainly support the petitioner although the submission presently under consideration does not appear to have been discussed in any detail.
15. In the present case however the matter does not rest there. The judgements of the Supreme Court and the judgements referred to therein refer to cases involving an amendment of the statutes. In the present case the power of revision under section 154 of the MCS Act has not been amended. Its applicability has been put in question by virtue of a change in the character/field of operation of the society which in turn has triggered into operation the provisions of an existing law viz. The Multi - State Act. But if jurisdiction is to be decided as on the date on which the original proceeding was instituted this would make no difference for, as held by the Supreme Court: "The right of appeal is a vested right and such a right to enter the superior court accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences.."
16. This is therefore a different type of case. There is no amendment of the provision viz. section 154 as such but there is an impact of its applicability on the change in status of the petitioner. To the question under consideration I do not think that ought to make any difference. The change in character may not be involuntary. There was no compulsion upon the petitioner to convert itself into a multi - state co-operative society. The effect of law however as to the cancellation of its registration under the MCS Act was involuntary in view of section 22(5) of the Multi -
State Act. Surely the legislature did not intend extinguishing or even jeopardising or affecting the rights and liabilities of a party merely due to the conversion of a society into a multi - state co-operative society. If the respondents' submission is to be accepted that would be the inevitable consequence. Such a society would be left without a remedy or absolved of liability as the case may be. As stated above the Multi - State Act contains no provision for transfer of proceedings pending before the authorities under the MCS Act to those under the Multi - State Act.
17. The impugned order was based on a judgement of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Adarsh Ginning and Pressing Factory Versus State of Maharashtra 2007 (5) ALL MR
364. The judgement is of no relevance in the facts of the present case. Firstly in that case the bank was earlier registered under the MCS Act and on 9.12.1999 it was registered under the Multistate Co-Operative Societies Act, 1984. The bank instituted the recovery proceedings undersection 101 on 14.8.2002 (paragraph 20 of the judgement). The Multi State Act of 2002 came into force with effect from 19.8.2002. Under section 126 of the Act of 2002 the 1984 Act was repealed. Section 126 (2) provides a saving clause inter-
alia in respect of any application made under the 1984 Act. The main issue in the Writ Petitions filed before the Division Bench was as to the validity of the circulars issued by the authorities under the MCS Act. It was contended that the State authorities/authorities under the MCS Act had no jurisdiction to issue directions or circulars in respect of proceedings relating to the Multi -State Act.
The question presently under consideration neither fell for consideration of the Division Bench nor was dealt with by the Division Bench even obiter. The society before the Division Bench was registered as a multi-State co-operative society under the 1984 Act on 9.12.1999 i.e. before it instituted the proceeding under section 101 of the MCS Act on 28.10.2002.
18. Section 99 of the Multi - State Act provides for appeals. It specifies the appealable orders. An order passed under the MCS Act including the impugned order is not specified in section 99.Section 101 of the Multi - State Act provides for a review. It however provides for a review by the appellate authority referred to under section 99. It clearly therefore does not apply to orders passed under the MCS Act.
19. Faced with this it was contended that the petitioner has a remedy under section 84 of the Multi - State Act which reads as under:-
84. Reference of disputes.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute [other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a multi- State co-operative society against its paid employee or an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)] touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co- operative society arises--
(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or
(b) between a member, past members and persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the multi-State co-operative society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the multi-State co-
operative society or liquidator, past or present, or
(c) between the multi-State co-operative society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the multi-State co-
operative society, or
(d) between the multi-State co-operative society and any other multi-State co-operative society, between a multi-State co-operative society and liquidator of another multi-State co-operative society or between the liquidator of one multi-State co-operative society and the liquidator of another multi-State co-operative society, such dispute shall be referred to arbitration.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society, namely :--
(a) a claim by the multi-State co-operative society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not ;
(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the multi-State co-operative society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from theprincipal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not ;
(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of a multi-State co-operative society.
(3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to arbitration under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society, the decision thereon of the arbitrator shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.
(4) Where a dispute has been referred to arbitration under sub-section (1), the same shall be settled or decided by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Registrar.
(5) Save as otherwise provided under this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to all arbitration under this Act as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996.
It was submitted that the petitioner ought therefore to follow the procedure under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The submission is not well founded.
20. Section 84 of the Multi - State Act would apply to cases which are to be instituted under the said Act. It does not apply to cases which have already been instituted another Act including theMCS Act. The section does not even provide for a transfer of cases filed under the MCS Act to the authorities/arbitration provided for therein. If the legislature intended annuling all proceedings under the MCS Act and the re-presentation/filing thereof under section 84 of the Multi - State Actthe same would have been provided for expressly. As it is there is not even a suggestion to this effect in either enactment. To accept the respondents submission would be reading into the enactments consequences of a wide and crucial nature which cannot be done.
21. There is another indication which militates against the respondents submission. There is no provision in the Multi - State Act which saves the bar of limitation if proceedings were to be adopted de-novo under section 84 thereof. To this it was submitted that an application could be made for condonation of delay under section 85(3) which provides for limitation. Section 85 reads as under :-
"85. Limitation.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), but subject to the specific provisions made in this Act, the period of limitation in the case of a dis- pute referred to arbitration shall,--
(a) when the dispute relates to the recovery of any sum including interest thereon due to a multi-
State co-operative society by a member thereof, be computed from the date on which such mem- ber dies or ceases to be a member of the society;
(b) save as otherwise provided in clause (c), when the dispute relates to any act or omission on the part of any of the parties referred to in clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-sec- tion (1) of Section 84, be six years from the date on which the act or omission, with reference to which the dispute arose, took place;
(c) when the dispute is in respect of an election of an officer of a multi-State co-operative society, be one month from the date of the declaration of the result of the election.
(2) The period of limitation in the case of
any dispute, except those mentioned in
sub-section (1), which are required to be referred to arbitration shall be regulated by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), as if the dispute were a suit and the arbitrator a civil court.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the arbitrator may admit a dispute after the expiry of the period of limita- tion, if the applicant satisfies the arbitrator that he had sufficient cause for not referring the dis- pute within such period."
22. Section 85 does not entitle a party to condonation of delay as a matter of right. It is left to the discretion of the court to condone or not to condone delay. It was submitted that in such circumstances the court is bound to condone delay. It is not permissible for one court to speculate on what another court may or may not do. To say that the court ought to exercise discretion in a particular manner is not the same thing as to say that the court would do so. If the party is entitled to be relieved of the bar of limitation on account of any legislative amendment the legislature itself would would provide for the same. I do not see anything in section 85 which supports the respondents contention. There is no period specified within which the application under section 84 ought to be made upon the registration of a society under the Multi - State Act. This too indicates that the legislature never in-
tended such a society making an application under section 84.
23. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the cancellation of the petitioners registration under the MCS Act was ordered under section 17 (4) of the MCS Act. The submission was that though the directions may have been issued under section 22 (5) of the Multi - State Act the final order actually cancelling the petitioners registration under the MCS Act was passed undersection 17 (4) of the MCS Act. In that event, it was submitted, un-
der section 17 (3) the proceedings adopted by the petitioner under the MCS Act are entitled to be continued. Considering the view that I have taken earlier it is not necessary to consider this submis-
sion.
24. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the revision application before respondent no.3 is also saved by section 126 and in particular sub-section (6) thereof. Section 126 reads as under :-
"126. Repeal and saving.--( 1) The Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (51 of 1984) is hereby repealed.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with respect to repeals, any notification, rule, order, requirement, registration, certificate, notice, decision, direction, approval, authorisation, consent, application, request or thing made, issued, given or done under the Mul- ti-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (51 of 1984) shall, if in force at the commencement of this Act, continue to be in force and have effect as if made, issued, given or done under the corresponding provisions of this Act.
(3) Every multi-State co-operative society, existing immediately before the commencement of this Act which has been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912) or under any other Act relating to co-operative societies in force, in any State or in pursuance of the provisions of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 (6 of 1942) or the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (51 of 1984), shall be deemed to be registered under the corresponding provisions of this Act, and the bye-
laws of such society shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or the rules, continue to be in force until altered or rescinded.
(4) All appointments, rule and orders made, all notifications and notices issued and all suits and other proceedings instituted under any of the Acts referred to in sub-section (1) shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been respectively made, issued and instituted under this Act, save that an order made cancelling the registration of a mul- ti-State co-operative society shall be deemed, unless the society has already been finally liqui- dated, to be an order made under Section 86 for it being wound up.
(5) The provisions of this Act shall apply to--
(a) any application for registration of a multi- State co-operative society;
(b) any application for registration of
amendment of bye-laws of a multi-State
co-operative society,
pending at the commencement of this Act and to the proceedings consequent thereon and to any registration granted in pursuance thereof.
(6) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any le- gal proceeding pending in any court or before the Central Registrar or any other authority at the commencement of this Act shall be continued to be in that court or before the Central Registrar or that authority as if this Act had not been passed."
The submission was that the words " .............. pending in any court or before the Central Registrar or any other authority ................" in sub-section (6) ought to be construed to include proceedings which were pending at the time of conversion of a society registered under the MCS Act into a multi -
State co-operative society and the cancellation of the registration of such a society under the MCS Act and the registration thereof under the Multi - State Act.
25. If my answer to the question that falls for consideration is correct this submission is not well founded. It would follow in that event that the proceedings under the MCS Act remaining unaffected could not fall within the ambit of section 126. The submission also involves rewriting by adding words to the provision of section 126(6) which is not permissible.
26. In the circumstances the impugned order dated 14.8.2008 is set-aside, the revision application is restored to file and respondent no.3 shall decide the same on merits. There shall however be no order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment