BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD. versus UMA SHANKAR SHARAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 892 · Decided: 18-08-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

}-
• 
A 
BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD. 
v. 
UMA SHANK.AR SHARAN AND ANR. 
AUGUST 18, 1992 
B 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935-Sections 40 and 
48-Whether remedy under a specific provision excludes remedy under a 
""-. 
general provision-Held, where two remedies are available, both continu~ till 
c the election of one of them, and action commenced accordingly-Section 40 
does not therefore exclude Section 48-f'lurality of Remedies-Principle of 
election. 
During the tenure of respondent 1 as Depot Manager of the Bihar 
State Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd., a shortage of coal was detected. 
-~ 
D The appellant-Cooperative Union made a claim for the loss, and a refer-
ence was made to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies under 
Section 4~ of the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act 1935. Section 
48(1)_(c) deals with disputes between the Society and a past or present 
officer or agent of the Society. Section 40 provides for investigation by the 
E 
Registrar where upon an audit or enquiry such officer has been found 
guilty of misappropriation or similar acts. The Assistant Registrar in an 
enquiry under Section 48 absolved respondent 1. This was reversed by the 
Joint Registrar and an award made accordingiy. The Patna High Court in 
a writ application under Article 226 by respondent 1 held that since the 
~
matter was covered by Section 40, Section 48 could not apply and set aside 
r 
F 
the award. The High Court relied on the maxim genera/ia specialibus non 
derogant. The claim under Section 40 was rejected on the ground of 
4 
limitation under second proviso to Section 40 which prescribe a period of 
six years. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1. Validity of plural remedies, if available under the law, 
cannot be doubted. Even if the two remedies are inconsistent, they con-
;:-:-- . 
- tinue for the person concerned to choose from, until he elects one of them, 
commencing an action accordingly. A matter which may attract Section 40 
H will continue to be governed by Section 48 also if the necessary conditions 
892 
-
-" 
CO-OPT. MKT. UNION v. UMA SHANKAR [SHARMA, J.] 
893 
~ 
are fulfilled. In the present case no steps under Section 40 were ever taken A 
by the appellant. The provisions ~f Section 48 are available to the appel· 
lant for the recovery of the loss. [896C·D] 
Prem Jeet Kumar v. Surender Gandotra & Ors., [1991) Supp. 2 ·sec 
215 and Pentakota Srirakulu v. Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., (1965) 
B 
1 SCR 186, followed. 
I 
2. The claim of the appellant against respondent 1 is clearly covered 
by Section 48(l)(c) and therefore was validly referred to the Registn\r 
under Section 48. [89SG] 
3. The six year rule of limitation in Proviso under Section 40(1) c 
is limited for the purpose of Section 40, and cannot govern a reference 
· under Section 48. Even otherwise, on facts the claim is not barred by 
limitation. (8978) 
A 
f'umea Ministerial Government Officers' Co-operative Society Ltd. v. D 
Abdul Quddus, (1969) 11 BI.JR "969, distinguished. 
Matter remitted to the High Court for decision on the remaining 
issues. [897F] 
qVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3047 of E 
--< 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.1984 of the Patna High 
Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 373 .of 1977. 
---=. 
M.L. Verma and S.K. Sinha for the Appellant. 
F 
A.K. Srivastava for the Respondents. 
~ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. The question arising in this case is whether a matter, 
if it comes within the scope of section 40 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-oper~-
G 
tive Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has to be 
excluded from the purview of Section 48 of the Act. 
-~ 
2. Special leave is granted. 
3. The facts relevant for the decision of this appeal are in a short 
. 
\ 
H 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
compass. The respondent No.1 was Depot Manager under the appellant 
Marketing Union Limited and during his tenure as such, a shortage of coal 
was detected. A claim was accordingly made for the said loss by the 
appellant and a reference was made to the Assistant Registrar, Co-opera-
tive Societies respondent No.3, under Section 48 of the Act. The Assistant 
B Registrar absolved the respondent No.1 from the alleged liability and an 
appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 48( 6) of the Act before the 
Joint Registrar

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