1 CRA No.148/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.148 OF 2011 THE JALGAON DISTRICT CO,OP BANK LTD. VERSUS GANGAMAI INDUSTRIES AND CONSTRUCTIONS LTD AND ANR ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.RN Dhorde, Adv. h/for Mr. Dhorde Vikram R Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr.PR Patil. ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 24th NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties extensively and finally. 2) The Respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) filed Special Civil Suit No.90/2009 for damages against the petitioner Bank. An application in terms of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the Bank, asserting that Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division did not accede to the request of the petitioner by order dated 10th March, 2011 and consequently, the present CRA. 3) Several aspects are canvassed by Mr.Dhorde as to applicability of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial 2 CRA No.148/2011 Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFESI ACT) and how the secured property was leased to Respondent – Gangamai Industries. How breaches were committed in complying the lease terms. The petitioner Bank was, therefore, forced to take possession and it has taken possession. According to him, filing of the civil suit is barred in view of Section 91 couple with Section 163 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The learned Counsel further informs that case of the petitioner and of the respondent will fit in terms of Section 91(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and also in the explanation. The relevant provisions is as under : "91(1)(c) A person other than a member of the society, with whom the society, has any transactions in respect of which any restrictions or regulations have been imposed, made or prescribed under section 43, 44 and 45 and any person claiming through such person" 4) The learned Counsel also informs Section 105(1)(l) will also take care of the role of respondent while dealing with the petitioner bank. 3 CRA No.148/2011 5) The basic thrust of the matter lies whether the respondent – Gangamai Industries could be branded to be a member of the petitioner bank. A reference was given by Mr.Dhorde to alleged application of Gangamai Industries dated 12.10.2007. 6) Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that basically certain procedure is envisaged to admit a member, as provided in Rule 19 of Chapter-III in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. 7) Learned Counsel for the respondents also submits that the claim raised by the respondents in the civil suit, in any contingency, would not be touching to the business of a cooperative society, the petitioner bank as it revolves to assessment of damages based on breaches of terms in lease committed by the petitioner bank. 8) The provisions of Rule 19 read as under : "19. Conditions to be complied with for admission for membership, etc. - No person shall be admitted as a member of a society unless, - (i) he has applied in writing in the form laid down by the society or in the form specified by the Registrar, if any, for membership; 4 CRA No.148/2011 (ii) his application is approved by the committee of the society in pursuant of the powers conferred on it in that behalf and subject to such resolution as the general body of members may in pursuance of the powers, conferred on it in that behalf from time to time pass and in the case of nominal, associate or sympathizer member, by an officers of the society authorized in that behalf by the committee; (iii) he has fulfilled all other conditions laid down in the Act, the rules and the by-laws; (iv) in case of a firm, company or body corporate, society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, a public trust registered under any law for the time being in force relating to registration of public trusts or a local authority, the application for membership is accompanied by a resolution authorizing it to apply for such membership." 9) Reading these provisions, it is more than clear, contour and status of respondent – Gangamai Industries is a body corporate, consequently, the requirements, under Rule 19(4) of the Rules, are rigidly to be applied and followed, which informs, the application for membership is to be accompanied by resolution authorizing it to apply for such membership. There is nothing on record to illustrate that there was a resolution of Gangamai, a corporate 5 CRA No.148/2011 body, to get it registered as a member of the petitioner bank. Thus, the respondent was not a member of the Bank, at least on presentation of plaint. 10) The other feature in the matter is, the respondent in his civil suit has categorically come with assertion that there were breaches of terms of the lease and consequently, the respondent has suffered huge losses, which it has qualified and quantified. These aspects, in all contingencies, will not be touching to the business of the petitioner bank. The so-called illegality by the Bank could be attributable to civil court's realm than cooperative court, with limited scope. The question of interpretation of lease would plainly be activated in civil court. 11) In the set of above facts, the observations of the learned Judge holding that it has jurisdiction, need not be interfered with. There is no perversity or illegality in the order impugned. The Civil Revision Application lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/