S.K. SUBBIAH PILLAI Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN, SPECIAL OFFICER FOR SALAIMANGALAM CO-OPERATIVE STORES LIMITED AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dispute between the Salaimangalam Co -operative Stores Limited, a Co -operative Society which is hereinafter referred to as the Society, and the petitioner who was a member of that Society, was referred to the arbitration of the Co -operative Extension Officer, Ammapet, who gave his award dated the 31st August, 1970, holding the petitioner liable for a sum of Rs. 3,066 -05p. to the Society. The petitioner went up in appeal to the District Judge, Thanjavur, acting as the Tribunal under Section 96 of the Tamil Nadu Co -operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That appeal, however, was found by the Tribunal not to be entertainable, that the Society had gone into liquidation during its pendency and that Section 89 of the Act was a bar to it. That Section states:

(2.) THE Tribunal held that the appeal before it was a legal proceeding and was therefore not competent in the absence of any leave having been given therefore by the Registrar.

(3.) AS held in Bhogayya v. A.D.P. Sangam Limited, the legal proceeding envisaged by Section 89 of the Act is a proceeding of an original nature and not one by way of appeal, so that the reasoning of the Tribunal that the appeal filed by the petitioner before it was a legal proceeding within the meaning of Section 89 of the Act cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator of the Society seeks to distinguish that case on the grounds that it related to a dispute between a Society and a third person (as opposed to a member of the Society) and the appeal in the instant case is an appeal under the Act while, in that case, it was some other kind of appeal. These grounds do not present any distinguishing feature on principle and are wholly untenable.