Which court will have jurisdiction to try service matters of employees of co-operative society?

 It may be noted that the High Court, in the impugned judgment, has itself proceeded on the basis that if the dispute relates to reinstatement, the Cooperative Court will not have any jurisdiction. The main reason for conferring jurisdiction upon the Cooperative Court in the instant case is that the Cooperative Court has replaced the Civil Court and, therefore, powers of the Civil Court are given to the Cooperative Court. However, the High Court erred in not further analysing the provisions of Section 91 of the Act which spells out the specific powers that are given to the Cooperative Court and those powers are of limited nature. Our aforesaid analysis leads to the conclusion that the disputes between the cooperative society and its employees are not covered by the said provision. We may hasten to add that if the provision is couched in a language to include such disputes (and we find such provisions in the Cooperative Societies Acts of certain States) and it is found that the Cooperative Society Act provides for complete machinery of redressal of grievances of the employees, then even the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act shall be barred having regard to the provisions of such a special statute vis-a-vis general statute like the Industrial Disputes Act {See-Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd.2}.

18. As a result, this appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the Division Bench judgment, on which reliance is placed by the High Court in the impugned judgment, is overruled. As a consequence, it is held that the petition filed by the Respondent before the Cooperative Court is not maintainable. It would, however, be open to the Respondent to file a civil suit. Needless to mention, in such a civil suit filed by the Respondent, he would be at liberty to file application Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in order to save the limitation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1488 of 2017

Decided On: 30.03.2017

 The Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Vs.

 Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 365

Print Page

When court should return plaint instead of rejecting it?

However, in the present case, the Court has
rightly come to the conclusion to return the plaint as it
lacks   jurisdiction   due   to   the   nature   of   the   suit   and,
therefore, though he has settled the issue under Order
XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by virtue of the
wide powers given to the Court, the Court has rightly
returned the suit for presentation before the cooperative
Court.  It would not be out of place to mention that in the
case of Prabhakar Bhat (Supra), the Full Bench has held
that   “The   Court   had   to   aid   rather   than   obstruct   the
plaintiff.”    Therefore,  taking  into  account  this   guiding

principle if the plaint is rejected then, it will amount to
dismissal of the suit amounting to decree and the plaintiff
will face hardship as he has to go in the appeal, he will
not get any return of the Court fees and on the other
hand, if the plaint is returned he would not be a loser as
the correct forum is made available.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.415 OF 2014
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.469 OF 2014
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.415 OF 2014

CHANDRA PREM SHAH  V     K. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER)
 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­
CORAM  : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. 

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 30TH JANUARY, 2015.
Citation;2015(5) MHLJ 714 Bom

Print Page

When civil court has jurisdiction to decide dispute relating to co-operative society?

Trusts & Associations - Practice & Procedure - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, ss.45 and 91 - Inherent jurisdiction of Civil Court - To adjudicated cases of cooperative society - Held, u/s.91 of Act to bar Civil Court's jurisdiction, which was otherwise unlimited and was only subject to express and implied bar under statute, it should be dispute touching management of the society and between society, its members or person other than members of the society who had entered into any transaction in respect of which certain restrictions and regulations were prescribed inter alia u/s. 45 of Act - It was held referring to the judgment in SC case that before the dispute could be referred to the Co-operative Court u/s. 91(1) of Act, it was not only essential that the dispute should be of the kind described in the sub-section but also essential that parties to the dispute should be ones specified there under - Marine Times Publications (P) Ltd. Vs. Shriram Transport & Finance Co. Ltd.(1991) 1 SCC 469  Trusts relied on - Hence both the subject matter as also parties should be those specified in the section - It was, therefore, held that if either of the two requirements was not satisfied the dispute could not be adjudicated by the Co-operative Court - Consequently then the Civil Court's jurisdiction would not be barred - It appeared that only circumstance which enabled Cooperative Court to exercise its jurisdiction against such third party was that while adjudicating dispute which was otherwise amenable to its jurisdiction, Cooperative Court concluded that third party acquired some interest in property of one of parties to dispute - Consequently contention on behalf of defendants that as dispute related to management and business of plaintiff- society and was between society, its member and person other than its proposed members being covered u/s.91 of Act, it should be adjudicated in Co-operative Court was incorrect - Civil Court's jurisdiction was not seen to be barred - Thus, preliminary issue was answered in the negative .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2716 OF 2011
IN
SUIT NO. 2240 OF 2011
Usha Sunder Premises Cooperative
Soceity Ltd.
Vs.
Mr. Nilang Desai & Ors. 

Dated : 29 th APRIL, 2014 .

Print Page

Whether Consumer protection Act is applicable to co-operative societies?

Upholding the decision of the National Commission, the Supreme Court held that having regard to the scheme of the Tamilnadu Act and the object sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers better, provisions were to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully and in the context together meaning to the additional/extended jurisdiction (in the Consumer Forums), particularly when section 3 of the Act seeks to provide remedy in addition to the other remedies provided under other Acts. In our view, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan (supra) it must be held that a remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy in addition to the remedy provided under section 91 of the Co-operative Societies 

Act and the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum and other authorities under the Consumer Protection Act is not excluded expressly or by necessary implication by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

Bombay High Court

Mandatai Sambhaji Pawar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 3 May, 2011

Print Page