ROJALIN LAL Vs. BHEL UPABHOKTA BHANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by this review petition, filed under section 77A of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, for short hereinafter referred to as Act, seeks to review the orders passed by this Tribunal in Revision petition No. 11/99 dated 5.1.2000.

(2.) IN this revision petition it has been averred that in the earlier order this Tribunal has recorded a finding that under section 67 (1) of the Act, the relief of temporary injunction cannot be granted to the petitioner against the order of suspension because of the bar created by amended provisions of order 39 rule 2, proviso CPC, which amendment was incorporated in the CPC w.e.f. 14.8.1984. It was contended that the Cooperative Societies Act, was enforced in the year 1960. Under section 67 (1) of the Act, it has been provided that while granting interim relief of injunction the Registrar or his nominee shall follow the procedure laid down in the CPC by the order 39. Learned petitioner counsel contended that since this provision was made under section 6.7 (1) of the Act in the year 1960 and amendment under order 39, rule 2 CPC, was made w.e.f. 14.8.1984. But after this amendment introduced under rule 2 of order 39, provisions of section 67 (1) of the Act have not been amended and therefore, this amended provision of order 39, rule 2 will have no application to the provision?; of section 67 of the Act. Thus, this bar created by rule 2, of order 39 CPC by virtue of amendment of CPC would not be applicable to the provisions of section 67 (1) of the Act, while granting injunction against order of termination, suspension etc.

(3.) LEARNED petitioner counsel in support of his contention has invited my attention to the provisions of section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1887 that relates to repeal of earlier enactment and in its place new enactment is enforced. First of all he has placed his reliance on a judgment of honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 17 (Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa). In this case it has been held by the honourable Supreme Court that Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, adapted the definition of 'Motor Vehicles' contained in Motor Vehicles Act, 1914. Subsequently it was amended in the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, unamended definition of Motor Vehicles Act, 1914 remained in the Orissa Act. The constitutionality of that Act was challenged contending that the Central Act was challenged contending that the Central Act was applied by reference to Motor Vehicles registered under the Central Act for the purpose of State Taxation Acts. This Court held that the intention of the Parliament for modifying the Motor Vehicles Act has no relevance in determining the intention of the State Legislature in a Taxation Act. It is possible for both the Acts to co-exist, even if the definition of Motor Vehicles Act has been amended in the Central Act. It is therefore, clear that the definition of Motor Vehicles Act as existing prior to 1937 amendment would alone be applicable as having been incorporated in the Taxation Act. The constitutional validity of the said Act was accordingly upheld. 19. "In State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.V. Narasimhan [(1976) SCR 6 = AIR 1975 SC 1835], the question was whether the definition of 'public servant' in CI.(12) of S. 21, IPC would be applicable to a public servant prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The contention was that the definition not having been incorporated in the P.C. Act, the public servant under P.C. Act was not liable to prosecution of corruption under P.C. Act. Dealing with the doctrine of incorporation or by reference this Court considered the scope and reiterated the ratio in Hindustan Coop. Insurance Society's case (AIR 1931 PC 149) holding thus :