EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OFCO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as they involve similar questions of law and facts. The facts of the case in brief are that the second respondents in all the petitions are the members of the petitioner Co-operative Society. The petitioner Co-operative Society allotted the sites and subsequently executed the registered sale deeds in their favour. Their grievance is that though the sale value is only Rs. 5,00,000/- as shown in the instrument (sale deed), a sum of about Rs. 8,50,000/- (different amounts from the different members) is collected from them. Some of them also have the grievance that from the similarly placed members of the petitioner Society, what is collected is only Rs. 1,80,000/- towards the full sale consideration. Seeking the refund of excess sale consideration with interest, they raised the dispute before the first respondent invoking Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. In the said dispute proceedings, the petitioner Society raised the issue of maintainability. The petitioner Society contended that the allegations and averments in the memorandum of the dispute do not touch upon the constitution, management and business of the petitioner Society. The issues raised by them can only be adjudicated in a competent civil court. On the first respondent overruling the preliminary objections and holding that the dispute is maintainable, these petitions are filed.

(2.) Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K. Srikanth Patil for the petitioner submits that the second respondents cannot maintain the suit against the petitioner co-operative Society for the recovery of the amounts which the second respondents claim to have paid in excess. He submits that second respondents' grievances, if any, are to be ventilated only before a civil court. He submits that Section 70(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the said Act' for short) deals with the parties to the disputes, whereas Section 70(2) of the said Act deals with what a dispute is. Section 70(2) enumerates the categories of the cases in respect of which the disputes can be raised. He read out the said provisions, which are extracted hereinbelow:

(3.) He relies upon this Court's decision in the case of Scheduled Caste (Harijan) House Building Cooperative Society Limited and Another vs. The State of Karnataka and Others reported in : ILR 2006 Kar. 2180. The relevant portion read out by him is as follows: