DHAROI JALASHAYA MATSYA UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED Vs. GUJARAT KENDRIYA MATSYA UDYOG SANSTHA AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Here there is a dispute between different co-operative bodies as to the meaning of term dispute. Instead of Co-Operation there is dispute as regards their business. Even so in genuine spirit of co-operation they have assisted the Court (through their Counsels) in giving correct meaning to the expression dispute occurring in Sec. 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 While disposing of the case may I ask will they not resolve their dispute in genuine spirit of co-operation instead of dragging their feet to Court every now and then ? Now the question be examined.

(2.) The petitioners are original-defendants who succeeded before the trial Court in resisting application Exh. 5 for injunction restraining them from catching fish from Dharoi Reservoir. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit and prayed that the aforesaid petitioners be restrained from catching fish from Dharoi Reservoir. Considering the pleadings relevant documents placed on record and after hearing the parties the trial Court as per its order dated December 31 1987 rejected the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The plaintiff preferred civil Miscellaneous Appeal in the Court of District Judge Banaskantha. The appeal was heard by the learned Assistant Judge who reversed the order passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal as per his order dated February 5 1588 Hence this revision application challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Assistant Judge Banaskantha at Palanpur. The plaintiff and the defendants are co-operative societies registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 The plaintiff is an apex society of which members can be other societies as well as individuals. Defendant No. 2 i. e. Palanpur Vibhagiya Matsya Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. is a member of the plaintiff-Society while defendant No. 1 i. e. Dharoi Jalashya Matsya Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. is not a member of the plaintiff-Society. It is an undisputed position that the main function of the plaintiff-Society is to catch fish from the Government fishing lakes and to sell the same. Thus the business of the plaintiff is essentially that of catching fish and selling the same. Similarly the business of both the defendants-petitioners-Society is also to collect the fish from the lakes and sell the same. The plaintiff contended in the suit that by virtue of lease agreement with the Government it had exclusive right to catch fish from the Dharoi Lake Reservoir and the defendants were without the permission of the plaintiff catching fish unlawfully from Dharoi Lake Reservoir and therefore they should be restrained from catching fish from Dharoi Lake Reservoir. Before the trial Court several contentions were raised by the defendants including the question with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The contention regarding jurisdiction was raised on the basis of the provisions of Sec. 95 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 The trial Court held that the plaintiff had prima facie failed to establish exclusive right for catching fish from Dharoi Lake Reservoir. The trial Court also held that the dispute between the parties is covered by the provisions of Sec. 96 of the Act. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff had exclusive right to catch fish from Dharoi Lake Reservoir and that the dispute between the parties was not touching the business of the Society and therefore the same was not covered by the provisions of Sec. 96 of the Act.

(3.) The learned Counsels appearing for the parties have confined their arguments on the point of jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit and grant injunction in respect of the disputes between the parties. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff contended that defendant No. 1 is not a member of the plaintiff-Society and therefore provisions of Sec. 96 of the Act would not be attracted. However the contention cannot be accepted. For the applicability of the provision Sec. 96 of the Act it is not necessary that any other society with which there may be a dispute should also be a member of the plaintiff-Society. The dispute should be touching the constitution management or business of a society and the parties thereto should be from amongst the persons (natural as well as juridical) mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of Sec. 96(1) of the Act. Clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 96 of the Act reads as follows: