SHAMRAO VITHAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus KASARGOD PANDHURANGA MALLYA

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 162 · Decided: 21-10-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

162 
SHAMRAO VITHAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK J;fD 
v. 
KASARGOD PANDHURANGA MALLYA 
October 21, 1971 
[K. S. HEGDE AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
·Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942-Word 'Control' 
in 
s. 
2( l) o./ Act-Whether PClssing of award under s. 54 of Bombay Co-opera· 
live Societies Act, 1925 is con1prehended within -..i•ord 'control'. 
B 
The appellant v.·as a co-operative society registered in Bombay under 
the Bombay Co-opcratjve Societies Act, 1925. 
The head office of the 
appellant was in Bombay and it had a branch in Mangalore. As the objects 
of the appellant were not confined to one State it was governed by Multi-
C 
Unit Cooperative Societies Act, 1942 a Central Act. 
The appellant made 
a claim under s. 54 of the Bombay Act in respect of a• transaction which 
took place in 1'.1angalore against the respondent who was a resident of 
Kesaragod and \Vas a member of the appellant society. 
Both Man galore 
ind Kesaragod were at the relevant time in Madras Presidency. 
The 
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Bom0ay gave an award regard-
ing that claim. The award was sought to be executed as a decree in the 
Court of Subordinate Judge, Kcsaragod. 
The respondent took an objec-
D 
tion to the executiOn on the ground that the Deputy Registrar of Bombay 
had no jurisdiction to pass the award and the same could not be executed 
as a decree in the courts in Kerala. 
Upholding the objection the Subordi-
nate Judge dismissed the execution application. The High Court atllrmed 
the· decision. 
In appeal by special leave before this Court the appellant 
contended that since it was registered in Bombay State it was the Bombay 
Act \Vhich would govern the appellant society fo-r purposes of registration, 
E 
control and dissolution as laid down in s. 2(1) of the Central Act. 
The 
word 'control' it was urged comprehends within itsel't the adjudication of 
a claim made hy the society against its members, and in the circumstances 
the award under s. 54 of the Bombay Act made by the Deputy Registrar 
Co-opi:rative Societies Bombay did not suffer from any legal infirn1ity. 
HELD: As the objects of the appellant society were extended to the 
Presidency of Madras it should in view of suh s. (1) of s. 2 of the C~ntral 
Act be deemed to have been registered under the law in force in the 
F 
Presidency of 11.lndras rc.!lating to co-operative societies. The law v..hich v.·as 
then in force \.\·as the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. 
Un<lcr s. 
5 l of that Act a dispute between the appellant and the respondent in res· 
pcct of its dealings relating to its Mangalore branch would normally have 
to be adjudicated upon by the Registrar appointed under the Madra~ Act. 
The fnct that for the purpose of control the appellant society was governed 
hy the Bombay Act would not justify a departure from the above normal 
G 
rule. 
[166 B-E[ 
The word ·control' is synonymous \Vith superintendence, management, 
or authority, to direct .restrict or regulate. 
Control is exercised by a 
superior authority in exercise o"( its supervisory power. Adjudication of 
C.isputes in n juJ_icial <:>r quasi-judicial function and it would be uriduly 
'straining the meaninSt Of the word ·co11trol' to hold that it also covers the 
ndjudic·1tio~ of disputes "between· a co-operative society and its members. 
There is a clenr distinction bet\veen jurisdiction to decide a dispute which 
H 
is a judicial po\\"er, and the cxe-rcise of control which is an administrative 
po<J..·er,.. and it \vould be wrong to treat the two as identical or equate one 
with the other. 
[166 F-GJ 
... 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
s. v. COOPERATIVE BANK v. K. P. MA.LLYA (Khanna, J.) 
163 
Panchshila Industrial Co-operative Societies 
(Multi~unit) v. Gurgaon 
Central Co-operative Bc.nk Ltd.,' Gurgaon, [1971] 2 S.C.C. 500, distin· 
guishetl. 
Since, as held above, the dispute between. the parties could only be 
adjudicated upon in accordance with the .prov1s1on.s of ~he Madras Act the 
Registrar under the Bombay Act lacked rnherent .iur!sd1ct.10~ t<;> .decide the 
dispute and it was not a case of 
lack of terr1tonal 
1ur1sd1c~hon only 
[167 D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1312 of 
1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
October 22, 1962 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No. 
804 of 1969. 
B. R. Naik and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Khann

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