Bombay High Court
5] Shrikant Shamsundar Kabra vs 6] Appasaheb Govind Antre on 13 December, 2013
Bench: A.H. Joshi, R.V. Ghuge
{1}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2012
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.7649 OF 2011.
1] Kedarnath Ramdayal Bang,
Age 58 years, Occ. Agri. & Business,
R/o. Sonai, Tq. Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2] Radhakrishna Tribakraj Bihani
Age 77 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Ashwi Budruk, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
3] Mahesh Gokuldas Asawa,
Age 38 years, Occ. Business & Agri.
R/o. Songaon, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
4] Sau. Sunita Shrikant Mundada,
Age 45 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Bansilalngar, aurangabad.
5] Shrikant Shamsundar Kabra
Age 45 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Yeola, Tq. Yeola, Dist. Nashik.
APPELLANTS.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Cooperative Department,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2] The Divisional Joint Registrar
Cooperative Societies, Nashik Division,
Nashik.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:59 :::
{2}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
3] The District Dy. Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Dist. Ahmednagar.
4] Mahatma Phule Nagari Sahakari
Patsanstha, Bhingar, Ahmednagar
(through its Manager).
5] Shri Sant Sawta Maharaj Gramin
Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha,
Songaon, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
6] Appasaheb Govind Antre,
Age Major. Occ. Agri.
R/o. Songaon, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
ig Respondents
7] Nandkishor s/o. Shivnarayan Attal
Age 50 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Yeola, Tq. Yeola,
Dist. Nashik.
8] Sou. Vishwakanta w/o. Jagdish Attal
Age 52 years Occ. Household,
R/o. Yeola, Tq. Yeola,
Dist. Nashik.
9] Vijaykumar s/o. Shivnath Lahoti,
Age 52 years Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Yeola, Tq. Yeola,
Dist. Nashik.
10] Sou. Chandrakala w/o. Laxminarayana Ladhe,
Age 66 years Occ. Household,
R/o. Balikashram Road,
Tq. And Dist. Ahmednagar.
11] Smt. Alka Meenanath Antre,
Age 40 years, Occ. Household
R/o. Satral, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
12] Dnyandeo Bhaguji Anap,
Age 65 years, Occ. Agril.
R/o. Sonegaon, Tq. Rahuri
Dist. Ahmednagar.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:59 :::
{3}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
13] Raghunath Maruti Pathare,
Age 40 years, Occ. Agril.
R/o. Rampur,Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
14] Ashok Raghunath Jumbukar
Age 42 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Satral, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
15] Karbhari Waman Dhige,
Age 70 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Dhanore, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
16] Kaysalyabai Rambhau Shinde,
Age 50 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Songaon, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
17] Geetabai Bhanudas Tajane,
Age 65 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Sonegaon, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
RESPONDENTS/INTERVENORS.
Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. M.R. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr.
B.T. Bodkhe, Advocate for respondent No.6
Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 7
to 10.
Mr. S.B. /Jadhav, Advocate for respondent Nos. 11 to
17.
CORAM : A.H. JOSHI &
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT :10th DECEMBER, 2013.
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT :13th DECEMBER,
{4}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
JUDGMENT : [ PER A.H. JOSHI,J]
1] Heard both sides on different dates and at
length.
2] The appellants were allowed to substitute
the bunch of annexures by arranging those in sequence
and by placing additional annexures on record. While
deciding this appeal, we have referred to the paper
book in which substituted bunch of annexures is on
record.
FACTS, DATES AND EVENTS.
3] It would be useful to refer to the events as
they arose in sequence of dates. Those are as follows
:-
Sr. Dates and Particulars of event
No.
1 The appellants, respondent No.6 and
intervenors are depositors of respondent No.
5. They had deposited their money with the
respondent No.5 society.
{5}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
The intervenors are supporting the action
of the amalgamation of respondent No.5 in the
respondent No.4 society. It is alleged that
after amalgamation, said deposits have been
renewed by the respondent No.4 society.
2 The area of operation of the respondent No.5
is District Ahmednagar. It was running into
losses. The money of depositors of the
respondent No.5 society could not be repaid
by the respondent No.5, and hence, the
Managing Committee members as well as the
Members of the respondent No.5 society took
steps for its amalgamation in some other fit
society.
14/8/2009 :-
The Annual General Meeting of Respondent No.5
was called, during which Resolution No.13 was
passed proposing that the respondent NO.5
society be amalgamated into some other
society which may be economically sound.
{6}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
4 31/10/2009 :-
The respondent No.5 resolved to request the
respondent No.4 society to take over in
amalgamation, the respondent No.5 society.
5 31/10/2009 :-
The committee of Respondent No.5 decided to
call special general body meeting to discuss
the issue regarding amalgamation of
respondent No.5 society.
Therefore the public notice was issued in
"Daily Sarvamat" notifying that the special
general body meeting of the members of
respondent No.5 society has been scheduled on
1/10/2010 to discuss the issue regarding the
amalgamation. The agenda was also issued to
the individual members of the society.
6 1/1/2010 :-
In the special general body meeting it was
resolved by the general body (with 95%
majority i.e. 285 members being present), to
amalgamate the respondent No.5 society into
{7}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
the respondent NO.4 society.
7. The said resolution was opposed by 4-5
defaulting members including the respondent
No.6, and they left the place of meeting by
resorting to walk out.
8 02/01/2010 :-
The Agenda was issued by the respondent No.4
society for conducting special general
meeting on 10/1/2010 for discussing the issue
of amalgamation of Respondent No.5 into
Respondent No.4.
9 10/01/2010 :-
The special general meeting of respondent No.
4 society was conducted and it was resolved
to give effect to the amalgamation of the
respondent NO.5 with the respondent No.4
society.
10 29/3/2010 :-
The respondent No.4 society submitted a
proposal with the respondent No.3 District
Deputy Registrar, for amalgamation of
respondent NO.5 with the respondent No.4
society.
{8}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
11 08/04/2010 :-
The respondent No.3 District Deputy Registrar
directed the Taluka Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Ahmednagar to submit
his report.
12 15/4/2010 :-
Taluke Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Ahmednagar recommended the
amalgamation of the respondent No.5 society
in respondent No.4.
13 19/4/2010 :-
The respondent NO.3 District Dy. Registrar
has issued the order of amalgamation by
exercising powers under Section 17 of MCS
Act, 1960 and rule 16 of Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. By said
order, the respondent No.3 ordered that the
respondent No.5 society stood amalgamated
with the respondent No.4 society.
{9}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
14 20/4/2010 :-
The District Dy. Registrar then passed
consequential order for cancellation of the
registration of respondent No.5 society in
view of the amalgamation which took the
effect immediately.
15 18th May, 2010 :-
The respondent NO.6 preferred a
statutory appeal before the Respondent No.2
Divisional Joint Registrar challenging the
order of amalgamation. It was registered as
Appeal No. A-54/2010.
16 2nd September, 2010 :-
Respondent No.2 has passed an order of stay
of the order of amalgamation in the said
appeal No.A-54 of 2010.
{10}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
17 14/2/2011 :-
The respondent NO.2 has decided the appeal
preferred by the respondent No.6 and
confirmed the order dated 19/4/2010 passed by
the respondent No.3, District Dy. Registrar,
Ahmednagar regarding the amalgamation.
1/3/2011 :-
Respondent No.6 being aggrieved by order
dated 14.2.2011 preferred revision
application under Section 154 of the MCS Act,
1960 before the respondent No.1 State
Government.
19 1/3/2011 :-
The Honourable Minister has stayed the order
of amalgamation.
20 5/7/2011
Honourable Minister allowed the Revision
Application and has set aside the order
passed by District Deputy Registrar ordering
amalgamation.
{11}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
26/9/2011 :-
The appellants thereafter, preferred writ
petition No. 7649 of 2011 in the capacity of
depositors, challenging the order dated
5.7.2011 passed by the Honourable Minister.
22 21/7/2011 :-
Writ Petition No. 5456 of 2011 was filed by
respondent No.4 in this court.
1/1/2012 :-
Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6, entered into
consent terms and filed those in the High
Court in W.P. No. 5456 of 2011. By those
consent terms, respondent No.4 agreed to
withdraw the writ petition and acquiesced
and/or consented to the order passed by the
Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies
setting aside the order of amalgamation.
Under said compromise, the respondent No.4
was compensated by the respondent No.5
towards the expenses incurred by the
respondent No.4 towards steps taken by it
towards amalgamation.
{12}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
Appellants claim that during the pendency of
writ petition No. 5456 of 2011, the
respondent No.6 has forged the resolution of
the respondent No.5 society and, has taken
to himself, the authority to enter into the
compromise for and on behalf of the
respondent No.5 society, which has lost its
existence.
25 24/9/2012 The learned Single Judge of
this Honourable Court was pleased to dismiss
the writ petition NO. 7649 of 2011.
-:CASE OF THE APPELLANTS ON FACTS :-
4] The appellants are original writ petitioners
in W.P. No. 7649 of 2011. Appellant's case apart from
factual brief noted in foregoing paragraphs is as
follows :-
[a] The defaulting members who had borrowed
huge loans from the respondent No.5 society are out
to stall the further recovery proceedings. Those
{13}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
defaults were instrumental in creating hurdles in the
way of amalgamation of respondent No.5 into
respondent No.4 society. Respondent NO.6 also had
failed to clear off his dues and loan to the tune of
Rs.2,35,505/- was outstanding against him and his
family members.
[b] On 21/4/2010, the resolution was passed as
per the amalgamation order and accordingly the charge
of affairs of respondent No.5 was handed to the
Respondent No.4 society by the respondent No.5.
Subsequently the respondent No.4 society has started
functioning as the entire assets and liabilities of
the respondent No.5 were transferred to the respondent
No.4 society. The respondent No.4 society issued a
communication to the depositors of the respondent No.5
society and refunded 25% of the deposits and balance
unpaid amount of the deposits were renewed by the
respondent No.4 for further period.
[c] The respondent No.6 is a politically
influential person and is in the good books of Ex.MLA
Mr. Prasad Tanpure, who belongs to NCP party. The
{14}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
respondent No.6 of Respondent No.5 had exerted great
deal of pressure upon the respondent authorities to
stall the process of amalgamation.
[d] The Minister of State for Cooperation,
erroneously allowed the revision filed by the
Respondent No.6. The Minster of State has fallen prey
to the political pressure exerted by respondent NO.6
who is the close aide of Ex.MLA. The Hon'ble Minister
has failed to appreciate that the procedural aspects
as per Sections 17 and rule 16 of Rules of 1961 have
been duly complied with and thereafter the order of
amalgamation was passed. The Learned Minister has
failed to appreciate that the revision at the instance
of respondent No.6 was not maintainable and order of
amalgamation was already put into execution.
[e] Present respondent No.4 filed Writ
Petition No. 5456 of 2011 on 21/7/2011. Contesting
respondents and present appellants had appeared suo
motu and by caveat. This court heard the petition at
the Stage of admission hearing on 26/7/2011 and
interim order of status-quo as regards cancellation
{15}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
of registration of Respondent No.5 was granted. It is
seen that said order was in operation till disposal of
the writ petition.
[f] During pendency of the writ petitions, the
respondent No.5 society and respondent No.4, arrived
at a compromise. Consent terms were drawn, and were
tendered before this court. This court had ordered the
Registrar (Judicial) to verify those.
[g] The respondent NO.6 and respondent No.4 have
illegally entered into compromise, which cannot bind
the Appellants and other members of respondent NO.5
society.
[h] Consent terms were tendered in writ petition
filed by respondent No.4.
[i] The learned Single Judge of this court
considered it appropriate to dispose of the writ
petition No. 5456 of 2011 by order dated 25/1/2013 as
withdrawn without taking on record the consent terms.
{16}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
CHALLENGE TO THE ORDER PASSED BY MINISTER
5] Present writ petitioner filed W.P. No.7649
of 2011 on 26/9/2011. This petition was heard on
5/10/2011, and the interim order was continued on
11/1/2012 and thereafter from time to time.
6] In the Writ Petition No. 7649 of 2011, the
petitioner had raised and agitated the facts and
ground which are noted by this court in summary of
facts recorded in para. No.3 and ground which are
mentioned in para. No.4.
7] The writ petition filed by present
appellants, i.e. W.P. No. 7649 of 2011 was heard by
the learned Single Judge of this court. Said writ
petition was dismissed by order dated 23th September,
2012, which is impugned in this LPA.
8] Interest of the appellants and intervenors
is common. Challenge to the impugned order as raised
in the writ petition is focussed by the learned
advocate for the appellants on the grounds, namely,
ground nos. (V), (VI), (IX), (X) and (XI), which read
{17}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
thus :-
"[v] It ought to be held that, the
respondent No.6 failed to raise his objection,
when the objections were invited by the
respondent No.5 society during the process of
amalgamation and therefore is estopped from
challenging the action subsequently.
[vi] It ought to be held that, the order
of amalgamation dated 19/4/2010 was put into
execution and the respondent No.4 society started
functioning and also the deposits to the tune of
25% were repaid to the depositors
proportionately.
[ix] It ought to be held that, the
revisional authority has also erred in observing
that general body in the Annual General Meeting
held on 14/8/2009 empowered the unauthorized
Managing Committee to take decision regarding the
amalgamation of society without considering the
fact that General body is supreme and the
resolution was taken in the special general
meeting.
[x] It ought to be held that, the
registration of respondent No.5 society was
already cancelled and therefore same could not be
revived ipso facto and as the order of
amalgamation has been set aside it has resulted
into chaos and feeling of insecurity amongst the
depositors and members.
{18}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
[xi] It ought to be held that, the
revisional authority has failed to appreciate the
scope of revisional powers as conferred by virtue
of Section 154 of the MCS Act, 1960 and thus has
exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it.
Moreover, the order dated 20/4/2010 remained
unchallenged and no order could have been passed
for quashing the order dated 14.2.2011 and
19.4.2010."
[quoted from the grounds contained in the
memo of Writ Petition No. 7649 of 2011]
SUPPORTING PLEA OF INTERVENORS.
9] The intervenors, who have similar interest,
have agitated the points which are summarized as
follows :-
[a] The will of majority must be respected.
[b] Society's interest is prime
consideration which has been taken into
account.
[c] Statutory provisions are followed.
[d] Consent terms are not being vetted by
the learned Single Judge while allowing the
respondent No.4 to withdraw the writ
{19}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
petition. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge while passing the impugned order,
erred in believing or proceeding on an
assumption that the dismissal of the writ
petition filed by respondent No.4 was on the
basis of "consent terms" read and recorded.
[e] The amalgamation is already implemented.
[f]
Though the order of amalgamation is set
aside by the Honourable Minister, the order
of de-recognition is not set aside.
[g] The learned Single Judge ought to have
decided the petition on its own merits on
the points agitated in the petition.
[h] The petitioners being members are
entitled to challenge the action and any bar
such as locus standi will not come in the
way of the petitioners.
[i] A society which has ceased to exist
cannot resolve to resile and withdraw from
amalgamation. The depositors of the
{20}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
appellants are still in risk. The order
passed by the Divisional Deputy Registrar is
after due hearing and after following the
law and it had attained finality. The
Honourable Minister had no jurisdiction to
entertain the petition since wishes of the
society which is the highest body, are
required to be honoured. Petitioner's right
to organize for commercial activity under
Section 91 include the right to separate and
amalgamate.
PLEA OF RESPONDENT NO.6 OBJECTING/OPPOSING
THIS LPA :-
10] The petition has been replied to by learned
Senior Advocate Shri R.N. Dhorde. The ground which
are urged are as follows :-
[a] The order of amalgamation did not
operate and take effect since it was stayed
during the pendency of the appeal before Joint
Registrar as well as before the revisional
authority i.e. the Honourable Minister and
thereafter the order of status quo is in
operation.
{21}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
[b] Though the appellant is disputing the
fact that there was stay, records show that the
order of stay was in operation.
[c] Though the financial condition of the
respondent No.5 society had become bad, now, the
society has raised funds and the dues by way of
repayment of deposits of the petitioners, who are
willing to accept the deposits, would be made in
due course.
[d] Provisions of Section 17, which relate
to amalgamation, provide for consent of "all
members" and "all creditors". In the instant
case, admittedly, consent of "all members" and
"all creditors" was not obtained. According to
the appellants, only 95 % members who were
present in the meeting had consented in the
general body meeting. Respondent No.5 and others
had raised objection and it has been noted,
considering the brute majority against them, they
had walked out after raising objection.
[e] The decision of amalgamation is thus
contrary to Section 17 since all members have not
consented.
[f] Though the order passed by the
Honourable Minister is not eloquent as regards
reasons, if the points agitated by revision
petitioner i.e. respondent No.5 herein, are taken
{22}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
into account, which are recorded in the judgment,
it will reveal that the Minister had passed order
after taking into consideration the points
agitated by respondent No.5 herein.
[g] That, now there are adequate resources
and any depositor or member, who wants refund of
money, will be immediately refunded no sooner the
order of status-quo is vacated.
[h] The act of the appellants in insisting
on amalgamation is not in favour of the society
and the cooperative movement.
[i] Appellant's effort by way of present
appeal is not bonafide and same deserves to be
deprecated and deserves to be dismissed.
-:PLEA OF RESPONDENT NO.4 :-
10] Learned Advocate for respondent No.4 has
addressed that considering the solemn undertaking and
consent terms enter into between respondent NO.5 and
respondent NO.4, now, the respondent NO.4 is not
interested in amalgamation. Accepting amalgamation
was, in fact, an onerous responsibility and when the
respondent No.5 has been revived, there are no grounds
{23}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
whatsoever to thrust upon respondent No.5 as well as
the respondent No.4 the amalgamation. The law does not
preclude withdrawal of respondent No.4 from the
amalgamation. Whatever deposits were to be assumed
and taken over by respondent NO.4, will continue with
the respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 has already
undertaken to satisfy the liability.
-: QUESTIONS ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION :-
11] Now, this court has to consider the present
LPA on the following questions:-
[a] Whether the interest of the present
appellants is prejudiced by virtue of restoration
of the status in favour of respondent No.5 which
existed prior to the date of amalgamation ?
[b] If, by virtue of efforts taken by
respondent No.5 and their members, the said
society has become viable and adequate funds have
been raised, can any member insist on
amalgamation ?
{24}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
[c] Is it necessary to substitute the order
passed by the Honourable Minister in the interest
of the society ?
:FINDINGS :
Answer to question (a) :- Interest of
appellants, intervenors and similarly situated
depositors is not prejudiced due to revival of
respondent No.5 and order passed by Honourable
Minister setting aside amalgamation is legal and
proper.
Answer to question (b) :- Respondent No.5
has shown and appellants and the intervenors have
failed to show that by virtue of efforts of
revival done by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, now the
society continues to be viable. Appellants'
interest is in closing down activity of
respondent No.5 than its revival and interest of
members thereof.
Answer to question (C) :- It is not
necessary to set aside the order of Honourable
Minister in law, justice, equity or
technicalities.
{25}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
12] It is seen from the facts which are admitted
as well as the disputed issues, that certain things
are vivid, namely :-
[1] Initially, the financial health of
respondent No.5 had gone worse.
[2] It is not clear whether the creditors
had applied for liquidation on the ground of
erosion of net worth.
[3] It appears to be a case where the
respondent No.5 had crunch of liquidity than
erosion of assets.
[4] The move was made by members to
amalgamate the society with other viable/sound
society.
[5] The move for amalgamation was not
unanimous or unopposed.
[6] Admittedly, to the appellants, 5/6
members had objected.
[7] Proviso (ii) to Section 17 (1) of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act provides
that, "all members" and "all creditors" have to
consent for amalgamation.
{26}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
[8] Admittedly, all members have not
consented.
[9] Exact division of votes in favour and
against the motion was not ascertained.
-: OBSERVATIONS, DISCUSSION AND REASONS :-
13] It is important to note that whenever a
society has to be taken in liquidation, it may
possibly mean loss to the depositors suggesting that
they will have to share in the proceeds after
liquidation of assets.
14] Whenever members are of the considered view
that either the society can be rendered viable, or
assets are more than liabilities, and liquidation may
be more favourable to the creditors and members, they
are bound to oppose, the amalgamation on the ground of
personal pecuniary loss.
15] It is clear that the appellants who are
interested in amalgamation have primary AND TANGIBLE
interest in their deposits.
{27}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
16] It is vivid from the contents of paragraph
number 2 of W.P.No. 7649 of 2011 that interest of
petitioners is incapacity as depositors. Relevant
averment reads thus :-
"The petitioners state that, the
petitioners are the depositors who had
deposited their deposits with the respondent
No.5 society and subsequently said deposits
have been renewed by the respondent No.4
society. The petitioners also were Members
of the respondent No.5 society and are
supporting the action of the amalgamation
which has been taken by taking into account
the larger public interest and also of the
members and borrowers."
17] Interest of intervenors is concurrent to
that of the appellants.
18] It is sure that upon amalgamation, the
appellants will get refund of their deposits. Members
of respondent shall lose their membership with
respondent No.5 and shall not get it with respondent
No.4 except on fresh application, which they can get
even if the respondent No.5 is not amalgamated.
{28}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
19] It is evident that interest of respondent
No.5 is in negativity than in positivity. The
appellants have not disputed that certain funds are
brought in with the effort of the respondent No.5,
part thereof is paid towards settlement and
arrangements to pay to the depositors are already
made. The appellants and intervenors have not disputed
before us that equity or deposits now brought in the
respondent No.5 are not adequate to render the
respondent No.5 economically viable enterprise. There
is no whisper to that effect in writ petition, appeal
or anywhere. Moreover, the act of amalgamation is
such, that it is based on record, accounts and
decision as regards financial viability.
20] This court has to keep in mind that an order
of amalgamation is not like an auction sale in
execution of a decree of a civil court, which, upon
finalization would be rendered irreversible.
21] Moreover, if a group of members who have
taken efforts for revival of society, cannot be forced
into amalgamation. This is so, particularly, when the
{29}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
respondent No.4 has shown its readiness and
willingness to dispense with the amalgamation and has
rescued itself from the possible liabilities,
amalgamation cannot be thrusted upon it.
22] Appellants' effort is like forcing
restitution of a matrimony in whom appellants'
interest is not as a spouse, child or parent even.
Appellants' role is that of creditor and their
interest cannot exceed beyond their deposits.
23] It has to be believed that the interest of
the appellants is in putting an end to the status of
the respondent No.5 i.e. ensuring its death as a
legal entity.
24] The agreement between respondent No.4 and
respondent No.5 as regards amalgamation, is like any
other agreement and it could be rescinded if it is not
rendered irrevocable.. Moreover, its revocation when
is done during the pendency of a proceeding in court,
and interest of depositors is safeguarded. Moreover,
the appellants have not shown any reason as to why
{30}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
such revocation should be branded as defeating the
provisions of the MCS Act, the existence of society
and cooperative movement.
25] In the aforesaid premises all that the
appellants want, is confirmation of the death warrant
of respondent No.5. They are insisting on an
inauspicious cause than a cause of law and of
justice. This court ought not be brought into use and
exploited for vindication of such impious task of
soliciting and exerting for cause of death of a
society.
26] The appellant's interest by way of payment
of money and of intervenors as well as many other
depositors is wholly protected.
27] Since the respondent No.4 society with whom,
amalgamation was sought, itself has backed up, there
is no cause available to the petitioner against the
respondent No.4 or respondent No.5, either.
28] Therefore, the appeal is nothing but a
{31}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
voracious exercise. The appellants cannot continue to
espouse pursuing the amalgamation which could be the
cause of respondent No.4 in which it is totally
unwilling.
29] Ordinarily, locus-standing of depositors
passes through the channel which assures recovery of
dues and not incentives or sharing in the surplus.
Learned Advocates for the appellants as well as
intervenors were fair enough to be transparent. They
did not hesitate in making their stance very specific
and clear that :-
"while the pecuniary interest of depositors
needs to be protected, being honest citizens
they are keen on upholding the prestige of
law. Therefore, once amalgamation has taken
effect, come what may, now the respondent
No.5 should and cannot be revived, and its
merger in respondent No.4 should alone be
the rule of the court."
30] It is seen that the Honourable Minister's
order which is impugned is cryptic than laconic.
However, when on facts and law, it is seen that the
order is otherwise serving the cause and ends of
{32}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
justice, the order need not be set aside on any
technicalities or deficiencies.
31] It is thus vivid that appellants are out to
sell a coffin than a cradle. Why should appellants
adopt this course cannot be a question for
consideration of this Court. All that is left to our
judgment is to approve or disapprove the appellants'
lis by guaging and assessing it in the balance of
justice.
32] Had appellants and intervenor been espousing
the lis for a cause of justice for good of larger
number of depositors' pecuniary interest, it could
have received applause. Appellants and intervenor
seem to be interested in condolence than consolation
and applause. The interest of these litigants which
is vested in present lis seems to be more of such
nature that it is not pecuniary. It does not appear
to be social. Only interest which remains as residue,
as alleged by respondent No.6 against appellants and
intervenor is political.
33] There is no point in avoiding to notice that
{33}
revised (3) lpa 206.12.odt
for their political ends, litigants have been using
courts as battle grounds. When access to court is
available, such use cannot be stopped, however, when
intents do adequately surface, such exercise which is
by way of abuse needs to be curbed, deprecated and
deplored.
34] We hold that rights claimed by appellants
and intervenor are not in existence. Entire exercise
is vexatious and totally devoid of bonafides.
Appellants and intervenors deserve to suffer an order
of costs.
35] The appeal has no merit. The same is
dismissed.
36] We shall hear Advocates from all sides on
costs separately and shall pass suitable order
separately.
[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE] [A.H. JOSHI]
JUDGE JUDGE
grt/
