44
I
**PANCHSHILA INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERA-**
**TIVE SOCIETIES**
**(MULTI** **UNIT)**
_v._
**GURGAON** **CENTRAL** **CO-OPERATIVE** **BANK**
**LTD.** **GURGAON**
_August_ 6, 1971.
[S.M. SIKRI, C.J., A. N. RAY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.J
_Punjab Co-operative Societies Act,_ 1961, _s._ _55-Mu/ti_ _Unit_ _Co-ope-_
_rative Societies Act, 1942--Latter Act has no impact on s._ 55 _of the_ _former_
_Act-Central Registrar not appellate authority against award_ _in_ _respect_
_of disputes between co-operative society governed by_ _Punjab_ _Act_ _of_ 1961
_and its member._
The respondent bank is a co-operative society governed by the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. A dispute between the· bank
and the appellant, one of its members, was referred by the Registrar
of Co-operative Societies, in exercise of the powers vested in him by
s. 55 of the Act, to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies for
arbitration. The appellant filed an appeal against the award before
the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Central Registrar
dismissed the appeal holding that he was not the appropriate appellate
authority, under the Act. In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that it was registered in 1955 under the Punjab Co-operative
Societies Act 1955 and by virtue of the States Reorganisation Act. 1956
and s. 5(A) of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, it had
ceased to be governed by the provisions of the Punjao Co-operative
Societies Act, because, it had become a multi-unit co-operative Society.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : There is nothing in the provisions of the Multi-unit Cooperative Societies Act to indicate that a multi-unit co-operative society
cannot be a member of a co-operative society governed by the Punjab
Act of 1961. The multi unit co-operative societies Act is for the incorporation. regulation and winding up of co-operative societies with objects
not confined to one State and it has no impact on s. _55_ of the Punjab
Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, in as much as the appellant remains a member of the Co-operative Society, namely, the respondent
bank. If the appellant continues to be a member then the terms of s. 55
apply and a dispute can be referred to arbitration under that section.
An appeal against that award lies under s. 68 of the Punjab Act of 1961
to the government if the decision or order was made by the Registrar
and to the Registrar if the decision or _order is made by any other person.
Therefore the Central Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
[46H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
2293 of 1970.
A
**B**
## c
**D**
E
F
G
**H**
_J_
**A**
**B**
_)_
E
F
_I_
G
**H**
PANCHSHILA SOCIETIES _V,_ CO-OPERATIVE BANK _(Sikri,_ C.J,) 45
Appeal by special leave from the order dated May - **4,**
1970 of the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
New Delhi in Appeal No. CR/l/70.
_Harbans_ _Singh,_ for the appellant.
#### Remeshwar Dial and A.D. Mathur, for the respon
dent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
**Sikri,** C. J~-This appeal by special leave is against the
order of the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies
New Delhi dismissing the appeal filed by Panchshila
Industrial Cooperative Society (Multi Unit) appellant
before us against the award passed by the Arbitrator
(Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Soeieties Rohtak) dated
October 7, 1969, in respect of the dispute between the
Gurgaon Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gurgaon
respondent before us, and the appellant. The Central
Registrar held that he was not the appropriate appellate
authority against the award in question.
The only question which arises before us is whether
the Central Registrar was the appropriate authority on
the facts of this case. The relevant facts are these. . The
respondent Bank approached the Registrar of Cooperative
Societies Haryana for resolving a dispute between the
Bank and one of its members appellant before us. The
Registrar by his order dated February 17, 1968, in exercise of the powers vested in him under s. 56 of the Punjab
Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, referred the dispute
to the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Rohtak
for decision. The arbitrator gave the award on October 7,
1969, directing that the appellant do pay to the respondent
in all Rs. 16,05,658 · 20 together with interest at the rate of
six and a half per cent per annum until the realisation of
the principal amount _viz._ Rs. 11,52,535 · 00.
The appellant as mentioned above filed an appeal
against this award before the Central Registrar. The
respondent Bank is a co-operative society governed by the
provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act 1961.
Section 55(1) of this Act _inter_ _alia_ provides that if any
dispute touching the constitution management or the
business of a co-operattvce society arises between a member
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] l S.C.R.
and the society such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction
to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such
dispute. Section 55(2) provides that for the purposes of
sub-section (1) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee heirs or
legal representatives of a deceased member whether such
debt or demand be admitted or not, shall be deemed to
be a dispute touching the constitution, management or
the business of the co-operative society. Sub-section (3)
#### of s. 55 provides that "if any question arises whether a
dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is or
is not a dispute touching the constituti~n management or
the business of a cooperative society, the decision thereon
of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in
question in any court."
There is no doubt that the dispute between the respondent Bank and the appellant fell within s. 5S and was
#### properly referred to arbitrartion under that section. It is
however, contended that the appellant was registered in
D:cember 195S under the Punjab Cooperative Societies
Act, 1955, and by virtue of the States Reorganisation Act,
1956, and s. SA of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies
Act, 1942, the appellant has ceased to be governed by the
provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act because
it has become a multi-unit co-operative society. There
is no doubt that by virtue of the States Reorganisation Act,
1956, and s. SA of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies,
Act, 1942, the appellant has become a multi-unit co-operative society and the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act
applies to it. But that Act is for the incorporation, regulation and winding up of co-operative societies with objects
not confined to one State, and it has no impact on s. SS
of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, inasmuch
as the appellant remains a member of the co-operative
society, namely, the respondent Bank. There is nothing
in the provisions of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies
Act to indicate that a multi-unit co-operative society cannot
be a member of a co-operative society governed by the
### Punjab Act of 1961. If the appellant continues to be
a member, then the terms of s. 55 apply and a dispute can
be referred to arbitration under that section. An appeal
against that award lies under s. 68 of the Punjab Act of
\
A
B
#### c
D
E
F
\
G
H
_}_
- PANCHSHILA SOCIETIES _V._ CO-OPERATIVE BANK _(Sikri,_ C.J.) 47
A 1961 to the Government of the decision or order was made
by the Registrar, and to the Registrar if the decision or
#### order was made by any other person. It is quite clear
therefore, that the Central Registrar had no jurisdiction to
hear the appeal.
·B The learned counsel next contends that the Central
Registrar should not have dismissed the appeal but returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the
proper authority. There is no statutory provision enabling
the Centra I Registrar to do so. At any rate, if an appeal
is filed before the appropriate authority under the Punjab
c Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, that authority will no
doubt take into consideration the provisions of s. 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, read with s. 29(2) and decide
whether the appeal should be entertained or not.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with
D costs.
K.B.N.
_Appeal dismissed._
# .
