MARINE TIMES PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. versus SHRIRAM TRANSPORT AND FINANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 26-10-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MARINE TIMES PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. 
v. 
SHRIRAM TRANSPORT AND FINANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 26, 1990 
[M.H. KANIA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.I 
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 1960: Section 9 I Co-
•!perarive Society-Agreement to sell office premises in 11 building 
'"' 11ed by the Society between a member and a non-member-Agree-
ment subject to approval of the Cooperarive Society-Refusal of permis-
C sion by the Cooperative Sociery-Reference of dispute by non-member 
to Cooperative Court praying specific performance of agreement and a 
direction to the Society for approval of agreement-Claim of non-
member whether 11 claim against the Society through a member-
Dispute "whether touching the business of society'"-Cooperative court 
whether has jurisdiction over the dispute. 
D 
The appellant company, a member of Cooperative Society, re-
spondent No. 2, was having its office premises in a building owned by 
respondent No. 2. It entered into an agreement to sell the said premises 
to respondent No. 1, a non-member subject to the approval of the 
Cooperative Society. The Cooperative Society declined to grant pennis-
E sion for transfer of the premises. Respondent No. 1 filed a dispute 
against the appellant and respondent No. 2 Cooperative Society in the 
Cooperative Court under st'Ction 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative 
Societies Act, 1960 praying for a decree of specific performance of the 
contract and a direction to the Cooperative Society to approve the said 
agreement_ 
F 
The Cooperative Court dismissed the dispute for want of jurisdic-
tion. On appeal by respondent No. 1, the Maharashtra Cooperative 
Appellate Court set aside the order of the Cooperative Court. Against 
the order of the Cooperative Appellate Court, the appellant filed a writ 
petition in the High Court which was dismi•sed by holding that the 
G dispute was governed hy Section 91 of the Act. 
In the appeal to this Court against the Judgment of the High 
Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the dispute 
between the parties was not governed by Section 91 since it was neither 
a dispute "touching the business of the society" nor was it a dispute 
H between a person claiming through a member against the society. 
466 
( 
MARINE PUBLICATIONS v. SHRIRAM TPT. 
467 
Allowing the appeal and. setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, this.Court;·--
HELD: 1. Before a dispute can be referred to a Cooperative Court 
under the provision of section 91(1) of the said Act it is not only essential 
that the dispute should be of a kind described in sub-section (1) of 
section 91 but it is also essential that the parties to the said dispute must 
belong to any of the categories specified in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-
section (1) of the said section. [4738] 
2. In the instant case the main claim of Respondent No. 1 a non-
member, was for a decree for specific performance of the agreement. 
The prayer for an order that respondent No. 2-Society should be 
directed to give their approval to the said agreement was merely an 
ancillary prayer made with a view to complete the relief of specific 
performance. The main claim to have the agreement specifically 
performed cannot be said to be a claim made by a person (non-member) 
against the Society. The claim against the society cannot be said to be 
made through a member, the appellant, because it is only when a decree 
for performance of the said agreement is passed against the appellant, 
that it could be contended that the other relief namely, for an order 
directing respondent No. 2 to approve the said agreement is claimed 
against the society through a member. consequently' the dispute can-
not be said to fall within the scope of section 91(1)(b) of the Act. There-
fore, the High Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion 
that both the parties to the dispute belonged to the categories covered 
under section 9l(l)(b) of the Act. [473E-H; 474A] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Deccan. Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Mis Dalichand 
Jugraj Jain and Ors., [1969] 1 S.C.R. 887; Mis Leong and Anr. v. Smt. 
Jinabhai G. Gu/rajami and Ors., A.I.R. 1981 Born. 244 and Sanwarmal 
F 
Kejriwal v. Vishwa Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors., [1990] 
2 sec 288, distinguished. 
O.N. Bhatnagar v. Smt. Ruk.ibai Narsindas & Ors., [1982] 3 
S.C.R. 681, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4979 
of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.1989 of the Bombay 
High Court in W.P. 

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