VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD Vs. CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY K KOTAPADU VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Visakhapatnam District Co-operative Marketting Society. Ltd., K. Kotapadu, Visakhapatnam District. The frst respondent, had taken a loan from the petitioner and had not repaid the same A dispute was raised under section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act of 1964 and an award was passed against the 1st respondent-society Thereupon the 1st respondent-society filed an appeal under section 76 of the Act before the District Munsri Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam district. The petitioner raised an objection before the learned District Munsif stating that reading sections 75 and 76 together, the co-operative tribunal, in this case, would be the learned Subordinate jadge, Visakhapatnam, but not the District Munsif Chcdavaram. The respondent filed I.A.No, 600/73 which was dismissed on 14-9-1973 wherein the leaned District Munsiff held that under section 75 he is the co-operative Tribunal for the purpose of this dispute and therefore he has got the jurisdiction. Subsequently, the appeal also was taken up and by an order dated 27-9-1973 the appeal itself was allowed and the matter remanded to the Arbitrator, The present writ petition Is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for records contained in the said appeal C T, A.No.1/72 on the file of the iearned District Munsif Chodavaram and to quash the order dated 27-9-19/3.

(2.) The only point that arises for decision in this case is whether for the purpose of this dispute, the learned District Munsiff constitutes the tribunal or the learned Subordinate Judge. The undisputed facts are that the 1st respondent is t!:e member of the petitioner society ; It was admitted before the lower court by the parties and it is also not dispute before me now that the lit respondent is a primary society and that the petitioner is not a primary society. In fact, the explanation to section 75 defines "the primary soceity" for the purpose of the said section. I, therefore, proceed on the assumption that the petitioner society is not a primary society. Section 75 reads as follows : "The appeals referred to in sub-section 76 shall lie- (i) in any matter relating to a primary society, to the Tribunal consisting of the District Munsiff having Jurisdiction over the place where the office of such a society is situated and (b) in any matter relating to any other society, to the Tribunal consisting of the subordinate Judge, having Jurisdiction over the place where the main office of such a society is situated."

(3.) The relevant words are: "In any matter relating to". While Mr. S.C. Venkatapathlraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the matter in dispute cannor. be said to be a matter relating to the 1st respondent- society, but that it must be held to be a matter relating to the petitioner society, Mr. C, Poornaiah the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-society contends that inasmuch as the matter also relates to the 1st respondent (a primary society) the harned District Munsiff must be held to be the 'tribunal.