SHRIRAM DATTARAO CHAUDHARI Vs. MADHAODAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants and their Counsel remain absent. This appeal was listed for final hearing pursuant to order dt. 5.2.2014 passed by this Court. At that time, Mr.Kuldeep Mahalle, learned Counsel for the respondent had submitted that, in view of the ruling in Alok Agarwal and Others vs. Punam Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Others, 2013 1 MhLJ 104, Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the controversy.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on 12.7.2005 on the following substantial question of law :

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the substantial question of law would not really survive as the controversy is covered by the ruling in the case of Alok Agarwal and Others which also refers to the ruling by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Margret Almeida vs. Bombay Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Limited, 2012 5 SCC 642 in which, after making reference to Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that the disputes which are mandatorily required to be referred to the Cooperative Court for adjudication must be the disputes arising between the parties to the dispute who should belong to one or other category specific in clauses (a) to (e) to subsection (1) of Section 91. Unless the dispute satisfies requirements mentioned in Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain and try the suit would not be barred and dispute as in the present suit would not attract Section 91 barred u/s.91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act because for the forum of Cooperative Court the dispute must be within the ambit of Section 91, which is touching the Constitution and the management of business of the Society between the parties within clauses (a) to (e) of Section 91.