CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. ARIHANT INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The Civil Revision Application is admitted and taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE present revision has been filed by original defendants. Defendant No.3 who had moved application Exh. 13 in Special Civil Suit No.21/2012 filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) for recovery of money as bills had not been settled by the petitioners (original defendants) regarding the job of ginning and pressing done. The defendant No.3 filed application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Cooperative Societies Act for short) claiming that the notice was required as per Section 164 of the Cooperative Societies Act to be given to the Registrar of the Cooperative Society, but the same has not been given and so, the plaint was liable to be rejected. The trial Court received say of the plaintiff filed at Exh.14, and by order dated 2.8.2013, came to the conclusion that the matter related to recovery of money for work which was 3 not touching the business of the Society and that although the notice under Section 164 was given to the defendants and not to the Registrar, still the suit did not suffer for want of notice to the Registrar as it was given out of abundant precaution. In substance, the trial Court came to the conclusion that as the job concerned did not touch the business of the Society as the plaintiff was not member of the Society, and so the compliance of Section 164 of the Cooperative Societies Act was not required and so, the suit was not barred.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the trial Court and referred to the reasonings of the trial Court as his arguments. The learned counsel, however, was unable to show that if the plaintiff is not a member of defendant Society, plaintiff was not required to comply the provisions of Section 164 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The learned counsel submitted that the suit was for recovery of money and thus, it did not relate to business of the Society and so, the suit was maintainable. However, what actually appears from the record is that the defendants are office bearers of 5 Maharashtra State Co -operative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd., whose business is of purchasing cotton from the farmers and getting the ginning and pressing of the same done and then to sell the same in the market. This was got done as job work from plaintiff. When this is so, it cannot be said that the matter does not relate to the business of the Society. It is not a case that the defendants have taken any loan and plaintiff filed suit for recovery of such money. In that case, may be one could say that the suit for recovery of money does not touch the business of the Society as taking or dealing in loan is not its business. But in the present matter, it is a claim to recover outstanding does regarding ginning and pressing. The ginning and pressing got done clearly relates to the business of the Society.