KANCHEEPURAM MUNIGAN SILK WEAVERS CO OPERATIVE PRODUCTION AND SALE SOCIETY KANCHEEPURAM Vs. KANCHEEPURAM MURUGAN SILK WEAVERS CO OP PRODUCTION AND SALE SOCIETY KANCHEEPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has to be dismissed on a very short ground that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is not maintainable.

(2.) S. 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (Act No. 30 of 1983) hereinafter referred to as the Act, is in the following terms to the extent to which it is relevant. ? 90. Disputes :? (1) If any dispute touching the constitution of the board or the management or the business of a registered society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the competent authority constituted under sub S. (3) of S. 75 or the Registrar or the Society or its board against a paid servant of the Society) arises. (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society its board or any officer, agent or servant of the society or. (c) between the society or its board and any past board, any officer agent or servant, or any past officer, past agent or past servant, or the nominee, heirs of legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased servant of the Society or.?.. It is not necessary to extract the remaining portion of the section. The expressions used in the section are of wide import and in sub S. (1) there are three expressions (1) theconstitution of board, (2) the management and (3) the business of a registered society. The dispute raised in this case will undoubtedly fall within the second and third expression namely the management and the business of a registered society. It will also fall under clause (b) of the section as the parties to the dispute are members of the society represented by one of them, and the society itself represented by the Special Officer appointed to manage the society.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that induction or expulsion of a member will not fall within the term management or business of the society, For this he placed reliance on the judgment reported in Dr. Savitri Bai Nagan Goud v. Gutti Thotappa 1. In that case the question was whether a dispute relating to the dismissal of the President of the society from the office of Presidentship could be said to be a dispute touching the business of the society so as to fall outside the scope of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The learned Judge took the view that on the language of the section as it stood it would not be a dispute touching business of society. But that view has been overruled by a Full Bench in a decision reported in M.S. Madhava Rao v. D.V.K. Surya Rao 2 The Full Bench had considered the scope and meaning of the expression touching the business of the society. The Full Bench observed that the terms are very wide and would include a dispute relating to expulsion of a member of the society.