Whether jurisdiction of civil court is barred in respect of recovery of loan by co-operative society?

The settlement of disputes including the recovery of loan by a society from its members or sureties lies with the Co-operative Court. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in regard to the dispute which fall both in the purview of sub-section (1) of Section 91 of the Act. Section 92 regulates the period of limitation for different types of disputes mentioned in it and the disputes of the nature as provided in Section 91 has to be tried as a suit by the Co-operative Court as a Civil Court. Section 94 lays down the procedure for settlement of disputes and power of Co-operative Court. The Co-operative Court or the Registrar or the authorized person, as the case may be, if satisfied on inquiry or otherwise that a party to such dispute or the person against whom proceedings are pending under Section 88, with intent to defeat, delay or obstruct the execution of any award or the carrying out of any order that may be made is empowered to direct additional attachment of the property under Section 95. Any party aggrieved by any decision of the Co-operative Court or order passed by the Co- operative Court or the Registrar or the authorized person under Section 95 is at liberty to file appeal before the Co- operative Appellate Court under Section 97. Section 98 provides that orders mentioned therein if not carried out on a certificate signed by the Registrar or the Co-operative Court or a liquidator shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such court or be executed according to law and under the Rules for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. 

Supreme Court of India

Greater Bombay Co-Op. Bank Ltd vs M/S United Yarn Tex. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 4 April, 2007

Bench: B. N. Agrawal, P. P. Naolekar, Lokeshwar Singh Panta

           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  432 of 2004

Read full judgment here:Click here

Print Page

How to decide jurisdiction of civil court for execution of award passed by registrar of co-operative society?

Thus it is obvious if we read section 98 and Rule 83 cited supra that the choice of forum is of the party and not of the Registrar. It is open for the party in whose favour the award has been passed to select a particular forum of execution. Whenever a certificate is issued by the Registrar, it merely enables the party to take out execution through an application to the Court of local jurisdiction wherein the judgment-debtor resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Hence the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati having the jurisdiction to entertain the original suit has every power and jurisdiction to entertain the present execution application coming to it directly. It is not at all necessary to bring the execution to the Amravati Court with a transfer certificate from Ahmednagar Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision-applicant that the decree-holder should have filed execution application at Ahmadnagar Court and then got it transferred to Amravati cannot be accepted being without substance.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Civil Revn. Appln. No. 342 of 1978

Decided On: 15.10.1983

 Onkar Rajaram Wathodkar  Vs.  Ramnarayan Khatod and Sons

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.A. Paunikar, J.

Citation:1984BCI 42

Print Page

Whether award passed by registrar of co-operative society is executable even though no certificate is issued by him?

That takes me to the second contention urged by Mr. Karmarkar. His submission is that the issuance of a certificate by the Registrar as contemplated by Section 54 of the Act is a step in aid of execution of the award. Barring the bare contention there is nothing to support this contention. What Section 59 requires is, if a party in whose favour an award for money is made under the Act, then either for executing it through a civil Court or executing it through the Collector, a certificate signed by the Registrar is necessary. We are concerned in the present case with the execution through a civil Court and the relevant provision in that behalf is contained in Clause (a). Under that section an order under Section 54 of the Act shall, if not carried out on a certificate signed by the Registrar, be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court. The very language of this provision clearly indicates that unless a certificate is granted by the Registrar as contemplated by this clause it cannot be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court. Issuance of such a certificate has nothing to do with step in aid as contemplated under the Limitation Act. The very words used in Clause (a) of Section 59(1) indicates that an award is deemed to be a decree of a civil Court only if a certificate is issued by the Registrar. Even though in the present case the certificate was issued by the Registrar more than twelve years after the date of the award, still such an award is deemed to be a decree only upon issuance of such a certificate and as the present darkhast was filed within a period of less than three years in the year 1970 and the certificate was issued in the year 1969 it is not possible for me to take the view that the darkhast is barred by limitation.

Bombay High Court

Sivaji Ramji Patil vs Jalgaon Fal Wa Bhajipala Vikri ... on 23 November, 1977

Equivalent citations: (1978) 80 BOMLR 519

Bench: R Kantawala

Print Page

What is “business transactions” as per co-operative societies Act?

 In the case at hand, that there was a single transaction
whereunder the respondents-sellers had agreed to sell to the
appellant-society a parcel of land to the society, for use by the
society in terms of the objects for which it is established. It may, in
that sense, be a transaction that touches the business of the
appellant-society but it is common ground that the respondents
were not in the business of selling land as a commercial or business
activity for it is nobody’s case that the respondents were property
dealers or had a land bank and were, as a systematic activity,
selling land to make money. If the respondents were agriculturists
who had agreed to sell agricultural land to the appellant-company,
the transaction was, from their point of view, not a “business
transaction”. For ought we know that transaction may have been
prompted by family necessity, poverty or some such other
compulsion. Such a transaction without any business element in the
same could not constitute a “business transaction” leave alone
“business transactions” within the meaning of Section 64(1)(c).
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5704 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.36497of 2012)
Bhanushali Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. …Appellant
Vs.
Mangilal & Ors. …Respondents

T.S. THAKUR, J.
Citation;AIR 2015 SC 3016

Print Page