LexHYDERABAD CO-OPERATIVE COMMERCIAL CORPN. LTD. ETC. versus SYED MOHIUDDIN KHADIR (DEAD) BY L. RS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•C
G
H
159
HYDERABAD CO-OPERATIVE COMMERCIAL CORPN.
LTD.ETC.
v.
SYED MOHIUDDIN KHADIR (dead) BY L. RS. ETC.
July 30, 1975
[A. N. RAY, C. J., K. K. MATHEW, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AXD
S. M. FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
J.Julfi.Unit Co-operath·e Societies Act,
1942-Ss. 4(1). 4(2), SA, 5B--
Scope of •
. Provfaion tnade in Stote. Budget allocating 111011ey to a Co-op_erati~·e Societ).'-
It could be at/ached by a 1udgn1e11t debtor-Delegation of power bv the Centrttl
Registrar to Sratc l~egistn:r to di.uoll·~ a Co-operati1·e Society-!{ valid.
The appeliant \.Vas a. mu1ti-111ut co-operative society governed by the Mnlti-
Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 Section 4( I)
of the Act coof'crs on the
Central Government power to appoint a Central Registrar of Co-operative Socie-
ties. According to s. 4(2) the Central Registrar, if appointed, shall exerci-se, in
respect of any co-operative society to \Vhich the Act appEes to the exclusion of
State Registrars, the powers and functions exercisable by the llcgisfrar of Co-
operative Sodeties of a Slate in \Vhich such society is actually r('gistercd. Jn
1952 the llyderabad Co-operative Soc~eties Act was passed which provid~s that
the State Registrar had the pov,;er to disso_lve a co-operative society and appoint
a liquidator. 1"he Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies \Vas appointed in
1956.
~ection 5B of the 1942 Act empowered the Central Gov~rnruent to dele-
gate "any power or authority exercisal,Jle by the Central Registrar under the Aet"
to State Registrars by a notification. Jn pursuance of this pO\Ver the Central
Government published a notificaticn in 1956 delegating the powers (under the
1942 Act) to the State Registrars, one of which was the power to dissolve a co-
operative society.
The notificat'.-0n specifically mentioned the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies of the State of Andhra Pradesh. As a result of this notifica-
tion the powc-rs of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Stat•!- Act ·of
1952, which were divested by the appointment of the Central Registrar, were
immediately restored to him. Jn 1960, the State Registrar of Co-operative Sc;cie-
ties passed an order of dissolution of the Society under S. 53 of the 1952 Act
and appointed a liquidator.
Jn the State budget {or the year 1959-60 provision was _n1ade for payment 'of
certain sums of n1oney to the appellant society. The respondent, a decree·holder
of the Co-operative SQciety, in an execution petition .sought attachment, out of
the sum provided in the budget, a certain sum due to him from the appel111nt
society contending that the sum mentioned in the budget \Vas a dcht Jue to the
appellant sec:.ety.
The execution court issued a prohibitory order to the Com-
missioner of Civil Supplies and the Accountant General to hold the said sum
until further ofllen.. On appeal the High Court held that the' mere fact that the
Cemmtssioner of Civil Supplie:i, ir:_ \Vhose custody the n1oney \Vas, directed the
concerned cfficials to make payments to the co-operat1.ve society as and \\:hen
occasion arose did not mean thnt the amount became the property of 1he ~ooety.
It further held that the attachment and
prohibitory order were invalid.
As
regards the order of }i'quidation the High Court held that it could not be sustain-
ed because the delegation made under S. SB of the 1942 Act was incon1petent.
HELD· : The budget provision fastened on to the cJaim of the co-operat~ve
society against the State and it ripened into a debt payable to the Co-operative
Society.
1 (a) Attachment of debts is a process by means of which a judgment cre-
ditor. is enabled to reach money due to the judgment~debtor which is in the hands
of a third person. These are garnishee proceedings. To be capable of attachment
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 S.C.R.
there must be in eoxistence at ti:" date when the attachment becomes cpcrativc
A\
son1eth1ng whu;h the law recognises as a debt. So long as there is a debt in exis-
tence it is not necessary that it should be i1nmediately payable. \Vb..::re anv exist-
ing debt is payable by future instaln1ents, the garnishee order may be niade to
beco1ne operatf.ve r.s and when eClch instalment becomes due. The debt must be
one which the judgment-debtor
could himself enforce for his own
benefit.
[l63D-F]
The facts in the present ca<;i:: establish that there was a debt due to the co·-
B·
·operative society ond the attachment was validly made. The amountExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.