N. BALAJI versus VIRENDRA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 05-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
N. BALAJI 
v. 
VIRENDRA SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 5, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI. CJ., P.K. BALASUBRAMJ..NY AN AND 
P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 : 
C 
Sections 74(2)(c) and 74(3)-Election of Directors., of Society-
Limitation for raising dispute-Few days before and few days after election 
objections made to authorities about irregularil)l in voters list, but not taken 
note of-On directions of High Court to examine them within a time frame, 
Ministry found that the dispute was to be resolved by an arbitrator appointed 
D by Central Registrar-Thereafter, High Court directed Central Registrar to 
decide dispute-High Court also recorded submission of counsel that limitation 
issue could also be raised-Held: Question of limitation was not left open for 
Central Registrar-Petition Before him was not separate and independent but 
a continuation of objections raised from time to time, and it was not barred 
by limitation-Discretion exercised in condoning delay in referring dispute to 
E him beyond pr~scribed period was proper-In proceedings before Central 
Registrar rigorous rules of pleadings in a civil suit under Civil Procedure 
Code or election petition under Representation of People Act, 1951 not 
applicable. 
Section 75(3)-Dispute about election of office bearers of Society-
F Power of Central Registrar to condone delay in reference of dispute to him 
beyond prescribed period-Held: It is not dependent on moving an application 
for condonation of delay-If facts of case otherwise sufficiently satisfy him of 
reasonable cause for condonation, he can grant the same. 
G 
Procedural laws-Technical objections tending to defeat substantial and 
effective justice-Should be strictly viewed for being discouraged, except where 
mandate of law inevitably necessitates it. 
Respondent were declared elected as Directors of a Society registered 
under Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. However, few days and 
H 
96 
-
N. BALAJI v. VIRENDRA SINGH 
97 
few days after the election, appellant raised objections that voters list has A 
been irregularly prepared. As his representations were not taken note of 
by Minister of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India, or any 
officer of the society, he approached High Court with prayer that 
directions be issued to the Minister to examine his representations within 
a time frame. High Court allowed this petition and issued direction B 
accordingly. However, on consideration of his representation, the Ministry 
found that under Section 84 of the Act, dispute arising in connection with 
election of the society has to be resolved by an arbitrator appointed by 
Central Registrar. Aggrieved by this, appellant again approached the High 
Court stating that his objections were filed under the predecessor Act of 
1984 wherein there was no provision for referring the dispute to arbitrator. C 
High Court recorded that respondents had no objection if Central 
Registrar under Sections 74(2)(c) and 74(3) of the predecessor Act of 1984 
decided the dispute, and recorded further submission of counsel of 
respondent that if dispute was barred by limitation, they could raise the 
said objection. On issue of limitation being raised by the respondents, the 
Central Registrar found that prior to filing of representation before him, D 
the appellants had raised the election dispute before as well as few days 
after the elections, and taken up proceedings before High Court. Hence; 
election dispute could not be dismissed as time barred in not having been 
raised within one month of declaration of the election result. Aggrieved 
by this, respondent approached the High Court and it was held that as E 
petition before the Central Registrar was filed after expiry of one month 
from date of the election, the dispute regarding same was time barred 
under Section 75(1)(d) of the predecessor Act of 1984. It was held further 
that delay could not be condoned by the Central Registrar in absence of 
the application for the same. Hence, the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that on true construction of the directions of 
High Court referring the matter to Central Registrar and order of latter, 
it could not be said that the dispute raised was beyond period of limitation. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD 1. What was filed on 30.4.2003 before the Central Registrar 
was only a consolidated dispute petition incorporating all the objections 
F 
G 
to the election raised by him 

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