MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. MUTHUSELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the Revision Petitioner. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed the Suit for an order of injunction restraining the Revision Petitioner from selling or taking any effort to sell the products lying at its his office for a period of six months and in that Suit, the Revision Petitioner filed application in I.A. No. 1231 of 2012 to reject the Plaint stating that City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit having regard to the provisions of Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and therefore, the Suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff has to be rejected. That Application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this Revision is filed.

(2.) Mr. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Revision Petitioner is a Cooperative Society and the Respondent/Plaintiff is a member of the Revision Petitioner society and even according to the Plaint, the Revision Petitioner serves as a facilitator for easy interaction between the manufacturers and merchants and the Respondent delivered the finished products at the office of the Revision Petitioner as per the customary practice and the Revision Petitioner initially gave 70% of the value of starch and sago as advance and the same will be repaid by the manufacturers with interest after the goods were sold and as a security, the manufacturers have to deposit the starch and sago with the Revision Petitioner and the goods shall be sold within a period of one year from the date of receipt of advance amount or the advance amount has to be returned and in the event of default, the Management viz., the Revision Petitioner can sell the finished products as per Article 40 of the Bye-laws and the Respondent deposited 2571 starch and sago bags on various dates between 12.4.2011 & 30.6.2011 & on 5.5.2012, a letter was issued to the Respondent reminding the Respondent about Rule 40 of the Bye-laws as stated above and on 7.6.2012, the Respondent sent a reply stating that she would repay the advance amount and requested three months time to sell the products but, the Revision Petitioner did not concede the request and threatened to sell the products. It is further stated that on 9.6.2012, the Respondent returned the advance amount for six lots which is around Rs. 15,00,000/- and even thereafter, the Revision Petitioner sold the lots for a lower price and in that circumstances, the Suit was filed by the Respondent for injunction restraining the Revision Petitioner from selling or taking any efforts to sell the products lying at the Revision Petitioner's office and as per Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred and a reading of Section 156, also makes it clear that even an action taken by an officer authorised or empowered by the Registrar cannot be called in question in any Court and no injunction shall be granted and therefore, the Respondent cannot file a Suit for injunction restraining the Respondent from selling the commodity entrusted by the Respondent when the Respondent has committed default in repaying the advance amount and as per Rule 40 of the Bye-law, the Revision Petitioner is entitled to sell the finished products and hence, the Suit is not maintainable. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgments reported in The Harur Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., rep. by its Special Officer and. The Co-operative Sub-Registrar/Sale Officer v. Minor Agalya and others, 2007 1 MadLJ 299, A. Sarangan & others v. S. Vadivelu Mudaliar & others, 2009 3 LW 245, B. Mathulingam and others v. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and The Special Officer, The Nilgiris District Plantation Workers' Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., , and M.M. v. Alagappan & another v. Karaikudi Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. & another,2008 4 LW 251, in support of his contention. In short, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred not only in respect of award passed and even in respect of action taken by the officers on behalf of the Registrar under the provisions of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and those actions cannot be challenged in a Civil Court and hence, the Court below has committed a serious error in dismissing the Application filed by the Revision Petitioner.

(3.) On the other hand the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain any dispute or Suit unless the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly excluded and Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act cannot be applied to the facts of the case and the act of the Revision Petitioner in selling the products of the Respondent is a breach of trust and the Respondent has no remedy if the Revision Petitioner sells the entire products and therefore, the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to grant injunction and relied upon the judgment reported in Margret Almeida v. Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society, 2012 2 Scale 113. He further submitted that even as per the Bye-laws of the Revision Petitioner, as per Clause 113, all disputes are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court at Salem and therefore, if the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any dispute between the parties, members of the society, there is no need to incorporate Clause 113 conferring the jurisdiction on the Courts at Salem and considering the dispute, no measure is provided under the Co-operative Societies Act to decide that issue and only Civil Court can decide that issue and hence, the order of the Court below need not be interfered with.