Shankar S/O Onkar Chaudhari vs The Manager, The Buldhana Urban ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 154 Bom

                                     1
                                                                wp2779.14.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                            
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                    
                        Writ Petition No.2779 of 2014


      Shankar s/o Onkar Chaudhari,
      Aged about 63 years,




                                                   
      Occupation - Agriculturist,
      R/o Village Sakhali (Bk),
      Tah. & Distt. Buldana.                            ... Petitioner

           Versus




                                         
      1. The Manager,        
         The Buldana Urban Coop. Credit
         Society Ltd., Buldana,
         Tah. & Distt. Buldana.
                            
      2. Prashant Kulkarni,
         Recovery Officer,
         The Buldana Urban Coop. Credit
         Society Ltd., Buldana,
      


         Tah. & Distt. Buldana.
   



      3. Talathi, Gram Sakhali (Bk),
         Tah. & Distt. Buldana.

      4. The Assistant Registrar,





         Co-operative Societies, Bhadola Road,
         Sunderkhed, Buldana, 
         Distt. Buldana.

      5. The District Deputy Registrar,
         Co-operative Societies, Bhadola Road,





         Sunderkhed, Buldana,
         Distt. Buldana.                                ... Respondents




    ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016                    ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:06:53 :::
                                          2
                                                                         wp2779.14.odt

      Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for Petitioner.




                                                                                     
      Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
      Shri K.R. Lule, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.




                                                             
                    Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

                    Dated  : 29    February, 2016
                                th
                                                  




                                                            
       Oral Judgment :

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of

the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The Trial Court has passed an order below Exhibit 1 in

Regular Civil Suit No.155 of 2010, holding that the Civil Court has no

jurisdiction in view of the bar created by Section 163 of the

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Section 84 of

the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 to entertain, try and

decide the suit in question, and directing return of plaint for

presentation before the proper Court under Order VII, Rule 10-A(1) of

the Code of Civil Procedure. This order dated 20-11-2013 was the

subject-matter in Misc. Civil Appeal No.85 of 2013, which has been

dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Buldana, on

5-4-2014, confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the

original plaintiff is before this Court in this petition.

wp2779.14.odt

3. It is not in dispute that the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff in

the suit was that though he obtained the loan of Rs.2,90,000/- from

the respondent No.1, fraudulently it is shown to be of Rs.29,00,000/-

by adding one '0'. It is not disputed that there is a certificate of

recovery granted under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative

Societies Act in respect of such sum, which was due against the

petitioner-plaintiff. The aspect of recovery of loan from the

petitioner-plaintiff by the respondent No.1-Society touches the

business of the Society. In view of this, the remedy is available either

under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act

before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, or under

Section 91 of the said Act before the Co-operative Court. It shall be

open for the petitioner-plaintiff to approach the appropriate authority

for adjudication of the dispute in accordance with law. However, the

Trial Court has committed an error in directing return of plaint for

presentation before the proper Court. Such order could not have been

passed, once it is held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. It is for

the petitioner-plaintiff to find out the proper forum and to approach it

in accordance with law.

wp2779.14.odt

4. Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2,

submits that the dispute under Section 91 of the said Act shall not be

maintainable. However, the question can be decided by the

appropriate authority, and this Court has not commented upon the

forum available with the petitioner-plaintiff.

5. In the result, the petition is partly allowed, setting aside the

order passed by the Trial Court, as confirmed by the lower Appellate

Court, directing the presentation of the plaint before the proper Court.

Regular Civil Suit No.155 of 2010 stands dismissed. Needless to say

that it is open for the petitioner-plaintiff to approach the appropriate

authority in accordance with law.

6. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.

Judge.

Lanjewar