STARLINKS OVERSEAS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, (he petitioner assails the validity of the orders passed by the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Punjab dated 29.3.1984 and that of the Secretary, Co-operative Department. Government of Punjab dated 21.7.1984 on various grounds. The controversy in the present petition fails in a very narrow compass and there is hardly any dispute to the, facts giving rise to the present petition. The petitioner had entered into an agreement dated 13.10.1977 with respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 is Federation of Mill; Producers and is a registered society. The petitioner M/s, Starlinks (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. was appointed and given sole sale Distribution Agency on the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. This agreement describes control that would be exercised by respondent No. 3 over the business of the petitioner and provided for other conditions like terms of payment of commission, sale, carrying on business and the facilities which were to be provided by the petitioner for carrying on the bu: iness under the agreement, it is the case of the petitioner that the area of operation provided to the petitioner under the agreement as sole sale agent extended to West Bengal, Bihar, Assam and North East Council Areas. In utter disregard to and in violation of the terms of the agreement dated 13.10,1977, the respondent-federation appointed M/s. Ghosh and Company as Distributors for the areas which were under the operation of the petitioner company on the basis of an agreement dated 4.7.1980, though the agreement in question was not terminated, but by virtue of appointment of M/s Ghosh & Company as Agent, the petitioner's rights under the agreement were infringed and various disputes arose between the parties. The application of the petitioner for referring the dispute and its adjudication was dismissed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies vide his order dated 29.3.1984, mainly on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties that the Registrar should act as arbitrator and that Section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) will not cover the case of the petitioner. The revision under Section 69 of the Act was preferred, which was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Development-cum-Secretary to Government Punjab on the same basis.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that both the impugned orders are based upon erroneous construction of provisions of Section 55 of the Act and further submits that respondent authorities have misconstrued the terms of the agreement The interpretation given by these authorities is alleged to be contrary to the settled principal of law. In reply the learned Counsel appearing of the respondent while supporting the impugned orders has argued that the disputes do not fall within the purview of Sections 55 and 56 of the Act and consequently no application lies to Registrar at all.

(3.) Before discussing the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it would be proper to reproduce Section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 which reads as under: