DINKAR WASUDEO JOSHI Vs. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant brought this suit for a declaration that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had no right to proceed with the arbitration case No. 9 of 1942 and that the attachment levied against the property mentioned in the plaint was illegal and void, for a permanent injunction restraining the said defendants from proceeding with the case, and for damages amounting to Rs. 1,000.

(2.) The material facts are these. One Rajaram Govind Joshi was a clerk in the service of defendant No. 3, the Deogad Urban Co-operative Bank, Limited, having been appointed as such on July 27, 1936, He became a member of the bank in October,. 1937, and on September 18, 1941, he passed an indemnity bond furnishing security against misappropriation. In 1942 the accounts of the bank were audited, and it. appears that the auditors discovered that between January, 1939, a March, 1942 there had been defalcation to the extent of Rs. 16,008-12-0, and as Rajaram was in charge of the accounts of the bank, it was believed to have embezzled the money. Rajaram, however, died on May 18, 1942, before the audit had been completed. On August 28, 1942, the society of the bank passed a resolution that the question of the recovery of the amount defalcated should be referred to the Registrar and steps taken against the legal representatives of Rajaram, viz. the plaintiff- appellant, his uncle, defendant No. 4, his cousin and defendant No. 5, his widow. The Assistant Registrar, Belgaum, purporting to act under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, appointed defendant No. 2 as his nominee, and the dispute was registered before the said nominee as case No. 9 of 1942, the parties being the Chairman, Deogad Urban Co-operative Bank, Limited, on the one hand and the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 4 and, 5 on the other. Certain properties were attached on September 16, 1942, as belonging to the deceased by the nominee purporting to act under Section 55 of the Act. This suit was filed on August 9, 1943, while the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar's nominee were still going on. The suit was resisted by defendants Nos. 1 and 3 on the ground, inter alia, that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it Certain issues were raised, among which three have been tried as preliminary issues, viz.: (1) Has the Court no jurisdiction to try the suit ? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the arbitration suit No. 8 of 1942 is illegally filed? and (3) Whether the attachment of the property is bad at law ?

(3.) The findings on, all these issues are in the negative, with the result that the suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff has now appealed.