BHANUSHALI HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. versus MANGILAL & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 689 · Decided: 24-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 7 S.C.R. 689 
BHANUSHALI HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. 
A 
v. 
MANGILAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5704 of2015) 
JULY 24, 2015 
[T. S. THAKUR, R. K. AGRAWAL AND 
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
B 
Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: c 
s. 64 - Dispute arising out of contract of sale and 
purchase of immovable property- Between the co-operative 
society and a non-member -Whetheramenable to 
adjudication uls. 64 - Held: A dispute can be brought within 0 
purview of s.-64, if the twin requirements are satisfied viz. (i) 
the dispute relates to constitution, management, business, 
or liquidation of the society (ii) and the dispute is between 
the parties referred to in clauses (a) to (f) of s. 64(1) - In the 
present case, though the dispute touches business of the E 
appellant society, it does not satisfy other requirements to 
be brought within purview of s. 64. 
s. 64 (1) (c) - Expression 'business transaction' -
Meaning and scope of - Held: 
Any activity in order to 
F 
constitute business must be systematic and continuous - In 
order to treat a transaction as a 'business transaction', it must 
be business bilaterally i.e. it should be business from the 
standpoint of both the parties - A single transaction of 
immovable property by the seller; if he is not in the business G 
of selling property for profit, such transaction would fall outside 
the expression 'business transaction' -A single transaction, 
as in the present case, would not constitute business for both 
the parties to the transaction. 
H 
689 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1957 - s. 5 -
'Singular' to include 'Plural' and vice-versa - Held: This 
principle is applicable only when no contrary intention is 
depucible from the scheme or language used in the statute 
- In the present case, plural expression 'business 
B transactions' occurring ins. 64(1)(c) of Co-operative Societies 
Act, would not include singular; because the intent in that 
provision is to bring only such disputes under the purview of 
s. 64 which arise out of what is business for both sides and 
comprises of multiple transactions :.... Madhya Pradesh Co-
e operative Societies Act, 1960- s. 64(1 )(c) - General Clauses 
Act, 1897-s.13. 
D 
Words and Phrases - 'Business transaction' -
Meaning of. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1. For a dispute to be brought within the 
purview of Section 64 of Madhya Pradesh Co-operative 
E Societies Act, 1960, two essential requirements must be 
satisfied viz. (i) that the dispute must "touch the 
constitution, management or business of the society or 
must relate to the liquidation of the co-operative society"; 
and (ii) that the dispute must be between parties referred 
F to in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 64(1 ). It is only when the 
twin requirements are, in the facts and circumstances 
of a given case, satisfied that a dispute can be said to be 
amenable to adjudication under Section 64. Failure of 
any one of the two requirements would take the dispute 
G beyond the said provision. [Para 3] [698-E-G] 
2. In the present case, the dispute raised by the 
appellant-society before the Deputy Registrar related to 
the alleged refusal of the respondent to complete the sale 
H transaction in terms of the agreement to sell executed 
'j 
BHANUSHALI HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. 691 
v. MANG I LAL & ORS. 
between the respondents and/or their predecessors-in-
A 
I 
interest, on the one hand, and the appellant-society on 
the other. The nature of the dispute, therefore, did not 
obliviously touch the constitution and management of 
the society nor did the dispute have anything to do with 
the liquidation of the society. [Para 4] [698-H; 699-A-B] 
B 
3. Purchase of land for being used in the manner 
set out in the objects of the appellants-Society is one of 
the facets of the business that the society undertakes. 
Such purchase is directly linked to th~ object of C 
developing the acquired land for allotment of house sites 
to the members of the society. There is, therefore, a clear 
and discernible nexus between acquisition/purchase of 
land and the object of providing house sites to the 
members which under the circumstances happens to D 
be the main business of the society. It is not a case where 
the facts giving rise to the dispute are not relatable to 
the objects of the society or where the connect between 
the facts constituting the dispute and the objects of the 
society is rem

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.