TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve Tribunal was dismissed by Ext. P-3. 2. The learned Judge who heard the original petition dismissed it by a short judgment reading as follows:-- No grounds are made out warranting any interference by this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with the concurrent findings of fact entered by the Arbitrator who decided the reference under Sec. 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal that the petitioner Society had failed to prove by any acceptable evidence that respondents No. 3 to 7 were responsible for the theft of some terylene cloth which took place from the Society's shop on 27-9-1969, Dismissed. 3. The appellant had taken the contention in the original petition that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to decide the question that arose before the first respondent on the plaints that were filed before the first respondent. The contention was that the disputes that could be settled under Section 69 of the Act must relate to a matter touching the business, constitution, establishment or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation. This contention was elaborated by saying that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrar for decision; and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. (2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1), the following shall also be deemed to be disputes, namely:-- (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominees heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Mana gement or any officer of the Society. Explanation :-- A dispute arising at any stage of an election commencing from the convening of the general body meeting for the election shall be deemed to be a dispute arising in connection with the election. (3) No dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Management or an officer of the Society shall be entertained by the Registrar unle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it has no jurisdiction before the High Court is called upon to give its decision. Justice P. T. Raman Nayar as he then was in Madhava Iyer Venkitasubramonia Iyer v. Catholic Bank of India Ltd. 1957 Ker LT 411 = (AIR 1967 Ker 109) refused to exercise the special powers under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the petitioner submitted to their jurisdiction and took the chance of obtaining an order in his favour. Therefore he cannot be heard to raise the objection before the High Court. In Gopalan v. Central Road Traffic Board, Trivandrum, 1958 Ker LT 410 = (AIR 1958 Ker 341) the same view has been taken by Vaidialhigam J. in S. M. Rawther v. Agricultural I. T. S. T. Officer 1953 Ker LT 958. M. S. Menon J. as he then was relied on the observations of Coutts-Trotter, C. J. in AIR 1927 Mad 130 (FB) which was cited with approval before the Supreme Court in AIR 1957 SC 397 (412). The passage from the Chief Justice's judgment runs thus:-- the test that they lay down is whether the applicant armed with a point either of law or fact, which would oust the jurisdiction of the lower court has elected to argue a case on its merits before that court. If so he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority itself. But it has been contended by counsel on behalf of the appellant that there is a clear distinction between a latent lack of jurisdiction and a patent lack of jurisdiction. Based on this distinction the argument ran as follows. A latent lack of jurisdiction can itself arise when the lack of jurisdiction has to be spelt out on the basis of certain facts which may or may not be known to the writ applicant. If he knew the facts at the time he took the chance of the decision before the Tribunal and did not disclose those facts and did not raise the point of jurisdiction before the Tribunal but took it for the first time in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution this court should certainly decline jurisdiction. But if on the other hand, the lack of jurisdiction was not latent in that manner but was a patent one the fact that he knew about the lack of jurisdiction when he took the chance of the decision before the Tribunal did not matter and this court would be entitled to and even might find it necessary to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and declining jurisdiction would help the creation of a precedent that a certain Tribunal has jurisdiction to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction is a patent one no explanation has been offered by the appellant. If he was vigilant he could have raised the objection before the Deputy Registrar. He has, we think, precluded himself from raising it now by his conduct. This view is in accordance with the consistent view that this court has taken for two decades. We may add that it is difficult to say in all cases whether lack of jurisdiction is latent or patent. By reading Section 69 of the Act alone it is not at all clear that matters relating to disputes which can be tried by an industrial tribunal cannot be dealt with by the Registrar. The words used in the section are touching the business of the society or relating to the business of the society. It is difficult to say that the matters in these disputes with which we are concerned did not touch the business of the society. In that sense the lack of jurisdiction of the first respondent was not patent. But there were two decisions of this court in Malabar Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Kozhikode v. State of Kerala, 1963 Ker LT 705 and Kerala State Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1964 Ker LJ 175 which could have been relied on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
