ADMINISTRATOR HINDUSTHAN CABLES EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LTD Vs. JATINDRA KUMAR DAS CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in this case art shortly as follows: THE respondent Jatindra Kumar Das Choudhury was employed by the Hindustan Cables Ltd. of Rupnara-yanpur, Burdwan (hereinafter referred to as "company"). Sometime in 1956 the employees of the company started a multipurpose co-operative society known as the Hindustan Cables Employee's Co-operative Society Ltd which was registered under the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the "society"). THE said respondent was appointed the Secretary of the said Society from its very inception THE statutory auditor employed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal, took the audit of the said Society for the year 1960-61 and made his report dated the 26th of March 1963 On the basis of the said audit report, the Registrar dissolved the Managing Committee of the Society on the ground of mismanagement and appointed an administrator who was the Managing Direc-tor of the company. On or about the 6th of March 1963 the administrator delegated his powers to B. R. Ghose who filed a dispute against the said respondent under Section 86 of the Co-operative Societies Act. It will be important to note the particulars of the claim made which was stated in the claim petition to be as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_146_AIR(CAL)_1968Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE Registrar, Co-operative Societies referred the matter to Shri M. M. Kirtania the district auditors, who acted as an arbitrator. So far as items (v) and (vi of the claim are concerned, being the 'canteen account' the said respondent J. K Das Choudhury made a counter claim. This will appear from the order-sheet of the arbitrator and may be set down as follows:

(3.) THE canteen account has also a bearing on the other items. With regard to Clause (iv), namely advance account, the award shows that the said respondent had stated that he had drawn some amount for meeting the expenses of the canteen section. THE award further shows that as regards Clauses (i) and (ii) of the claim the said respondent took up the defence that he might have expended the amount for canteen section. THE only item which does not seem to be connected with the canteen account is Clause (iii) of the claim.