9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt no 4. Respondent Nos. 5(a) to (d) are the heirs of original respondent No. 5. 2. By an order dated 11.7.2006 the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, respondent No. 2 dismissed the petitioners application for a recovery certificate under Section 101 of the MCS Act. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision application under Section 154 of the MCS Act. This application was rejected by the impugned order. By the impugned order dated 14.8.2008 the Divisional Joint Registrar, respondent No. 3 held that he is not empowered to entertain and decide matters pertaining to any multi State cooperative society. He therefore dismissed the petitioners application for revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act for want of jurisdiction. This order was based on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court which I will refer to later. 3. The case in a nutshell is this. In 1964 the petitioner was registered under the MCS Act. During the subsistence of this registration the petitioner filed recovery proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act against respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and the same having been rejected by the second respondent, the petitioner filed an application for rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the Revisionary Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 filed by a society registered under that Act when the applications under Sections 101 and 154 were filed but was converted into a multi-State cooperative society during the pendency of the application for revision whereupon the applicant was registered under the multi State Cooperative Societies Act and its registration under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was cancelled. 6. Section 154 of the MCS Act reads as under: 154. Revisionary powers of State Government and Registrar. The State Government or the Registrar, suo motu or on an application, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceedings of any matter, other than those referred to in Sub-section (9) of Section 149, where any decision or order has been passed by any subordinate officer, and no appeal lies against such decision or order, for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order, and as to the regularity of such proceedings, if in any case, it appears to the State Government, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f receipt thereof by him: Provided that no cooperative society shall be deemed to have been converted into a multi-State cooperative society on any ground whatsoever unless such society is registered as a multi-State cooperative society. (3) The Central Registrar shall forward to the cooperative society a copy of the registered amendment together with a certificate signed by him and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been registered. (4) Where the Central Registrar refuses to register an amendment of the bye-laws of a cooperative society, he shall communicate the order of refusal together with the reasons therefore to the society in the manner prescribed within seven days from the date of refusal. (5) (a) Once the amendment of bye-laws has been registered by the Central Registrar, the cooperative society shall, as from the date of registration of amendment, become a multi-State cooperative society. (b) The Central Registrar shall forward to the cooperative society a certificate signed by him to the effect that such society has been registered as a multi-State cooperative society under this Act and also forward a copy of the same to the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I will refer to in addition to the conclusions as summarized in paragraph 23 quoted above. The main, leading judgement referred to by the Supreme Court was the judgement of the Privy Council in Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd. v. Irving 1905 AC 369. In paragraph 4 the Supreme Court cited with the approval the observations of the Privy Council that there is no difference between abolishing an appeal altogether and transferring the appeal to a new tribunal. In either case, it was held, there is an interference with the existing rights contrary to the well-known general principle that statues are not to be held to act retrospectively unless a clear intention to that effect is manifested. In paragraph 11 the Supreme Court approved the judgement of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Daivanayaga Reddiyar v. Renukambai Ammal ILR 50 Woodruff 857 : AIR 1927 Mad 977 wherein it was held that this rule would also apply to a mere fiscal enactment. The Full Bench rejected as untenable the argument that when the right is taken away by a subsequent alteration in a mere fiscal enactment, the case is not the same as when the right depends on substantive law. In paragraph 12 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revisionary authority and seek the exercise of its discretion in its favour to redress what it considers to be a wrong order passed by the subordinate authority or court. This essential and crucial feature common to an appeal and a revision persuade me to apply the principles applicable to appeals to revisions as well. 9. Often a revision is permissible where no appeal lies against an order. The legislature in such cases confers upon the aggrieved party a right to challenge the order in revision albeit, to a limited extent and in a limited manner. If the provision for revision is by an amendment deleted it would certainly affect a party who had prior thereto a right to challenge the order in revision. 10. The next question then is whether either the MCS Act or the Multi - State Act either expressly or by necessary intendment make Section 154 of the MCS Act inapplicable qua proceedings instituted by societies which were subsequently converted into Multi - State Cooperative Societies. I think not. The proceedings were admittedly filed before a court of competent jurisdiction. There is nothing in either of the Acts which expressly bars the jurisdiction of the court upon the convers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1993 reads as under: 31. Transfer of pending cases.- (1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before any court. (2) Where any suit or other proceeding stands transferred from any court to a Tribunal under Sub-section (1),: (a) the court shall, as soon as may be after such transfer, forward the records of such suit or other proceeding to the Tribunal; and (b) the Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit or other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in the case of an application made under Section 19 from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage as the Tribunal may deem fit. 12. There is no provision in the MCS Act or the Multi-State Act similar to Section 8 of the Family Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case however the matter does not rest there. The judgements of the Supreme Court and the judgements referred to therein refer to cases involving an amendment of the statutes. In the present case the power of revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act has not been amended. Its applicability has been put in question by virtue of a change in the character/field of operation of the society which in turn has triggered into operation the provisions of an existing law viz. The Multi - State Act. But if jurisdiction is to be decided as on the date on which the original proceeding was instituted this would make no difference for, as held by the Supreme Court: "The right of appeal is a vested right and such a right to enter the superior court accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences.." 16. This is therefore a different type of case. There is no amendment of the provision viz. Section 154 as such but there is an impact of its applicability on the change in status of the petitioner. To the question under consideration I do not think that ought to make any difference. The change in character may not be involuntary. There was no compulsion upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order is not specified in Section 99. Section 101 of the Multi-State Act provides for a review. It however provides for a review by the appellate authority referred to under Section 99. It clearly therefore does not apply to orders passed under the MCS Act. 19. Faced with this it was contended that the petitioner has a remedy under Section 84 of the Multi-State Act which reads as under: 84. Reference of disputes.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute [other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a multi-State cooperative society against its paid employee or an industrial dispute as defined in Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)] touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State cooperative society arises: (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past members and persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the multi-State cooperative society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the multi-State cooperative soci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edure under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The submission is not well founded. 20. Section 84 of the Multi-State Act would apply to cases which are to be instituted under the said Act. It does not apply to cases which have already been instituted another Act including the MCS Act. The section does not even provide for a transfer of cases filed under the MCS Act to the authorities/arbitration provided for therein. If the legislature intended annulling all proceedings under the MCS Act and the representation/ filing thereof under Section 84 of the Multi-State Act the same would have been provided for expressly. As it is there is not even a suggestion to this effect in either enactment. To accept the respondents submission would be reading into the enactments consequences of a wide and crucial nature which cannot be done. 21. There is another indication which militates against the respondents submission. There is no provision in the Multi-State Act which saves the bar of limitation if proceedings were to be adopted denovo under Section 84 thereof. To this it was submitted that an application could be made for condonation of delay under Section 85(3) which provides for l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the registration of a society under the Multi - State Act. This too indicates that the legislature never intended such a society making an application under Section 84. 23. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the cancellation of the petitioners registration under the MCS Act was ordered under Section 17(4) of the MCS Act. The submission was that though the directions may have been issued under Section 22(5) of the Multi-State Act the final order actually cancelling the petitioners registration under the MCS Act was passed under Section 17(4) of the MCS Act. In that event, it was submitted, under Section 17(3) the proceedings adopted by the petitioner under the MCS Act are entitled to be continued. Considering the view that I have taken earlier it is not necessary to consider this submission. 24. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the revision application before respondent No. 3 is also saved by Section 126 and in particular Sub-section (6) thereof. Section 126 reads as under: 126. Repeal and saving.-( 1) The Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (51 of 1984) is hereby repealed. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in the Gener ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
