Case: Bhanushali Hsg. Coop. Society Ltd Vs. Mangilal

Schedule, and that the sale must be in quantity of 100 mds. or more at any one time. It would be noticed that the requirement is not that the person should merely sell, purchase or store the foodgrains in question, but that he must be carrying on the business of such purchase, sale, or storage; and the concept of business in the context must necessarily postulate continuity of transactions. It is not a single, casual or solitary transaction of sale, purchase or storage that would make a person a dealer. It is only where it is shown that there is a sort of continuity of one or the other of the said transactions that the requirements as to business postulated by the definition would be satisfied. If this element of the definition is ignored, it would be rendering the use of the word “business” redundant and meaningless. It has been fairly conceded before us by Mr. Khanna that the requirement that the transaction must be of 100 mds. Or more at any one time governs all classes of dealings with the commodities specified in the definition. Whether it is a purchase or sale or storage at any one time it must be of 100 mds. or more. In other words, there is no dispute before us that retail transactions of less than 100 mds. Of the prescribed commodities are outside the purview of the definition of a dealer.” 20. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Barendra Prasad Ray and Ors. vs. Income Tax Officer ‘A’ Ward, Foreign Section and Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 693 where this Court interpreted the word “business” and held that the same was an expression of wide import and means an activity carried on continuously and systematically by a person by the application of his labour or skill with a view to earning profit. In B.R. Enterprises etc. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. etc. (1999) 9 SCC 700 this Court held that business is a term wider than trade. It includes almost anything which is an occupation as distinguished from pleasure. The term must, however, be construed according to its context. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Mahesh Chandra vs. Regional Manager U.P. Financial Corporation and Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 279 , and S. Mohan Lal vs. R. Kondiah (1979) 2 SCC 616. 21. Suffice it to say that while the expression “business” is of a very wide import and means any activity that is continuous and systematic, perceptions about what would constitute business may vary from public to private sector or from industrial financing to commercial banking sectors. What is certain is that any activity in order to constitute business must be systematic and continuous. A single transaction in the circumstances like the one in the case at hand would not constitute business for both the parties to the transaction. At any rate, the legislature having used the expression “business transactions” has left no manner of doubt that it is not just a solitary transaction between a society, on the one hand, and a third party, on the other, which would bring any dispute arising out of any such transaction within the purview of Section 64(1)(c). The dispute must be between parties who have had a series of transactions, each one constituting a business transaction in order that the provisions of Section 64 are attracted and a dispute arising out of any such transaction brought within its purview. 22. The argument that the plural used in the expression “business transactions” must include the singular in view of the provisions of Section 5(b) of the M.P. General Clauses Act has not impressed us. We say so because Section 5 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 like Section 13 of the Central General Clauses Act postulates singular to include the plural and vice-versa only if no different intention appears from the context. That intention, in the case at hand, appears to be evident not only from the scheme of the Act but also from the context in which the expression “business transactions” has been used. The purpose and the intent underlying the provision appears to be to bring only such disputes under the purview of Section 64 as are disputes arising out of what is business for both the sides and comprise multiple transactions. Decisions of this Court in Newspapers Ltd. vs. State Industrial Tribunal, U.P. and Ors. (AIR 1957 SC 532 ) and M/s. Dhandhania Kedia & Co. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (AIR 1959 SC 219 ) have settled the legal position and declared that the principle underlying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act regarding singular including the plural and vice versa does not have universal application and that the principle can apply only when no contrary intention is deducible from the scheme or the language used in the statute. 23. In the case at hand, that there was a single transaction whereunder the respondents-sellers had agreed to sell to the appellant-society a parcel of land to the society, for use by the society in terms of the objects for which it is established. It may, in that sense, be a transaction that touches the business of the appellant-society but it is common ground that the respondents were not in the business of selling land as a commercial or business activity for it is nobody’s case that the respondents were property dealers or had a land bank and were, as a systematic activity, selling land to make money. If the respondents were agriculturists who had agreed to sell agricultural land to the appellant-company, the transaction was, from their point of view, not a “business transaction”. For ought we know that transaction may have been prompted by family necessity, poverty or some such other compulsion. Such a transaction without any business element in the same could not constitute a “business transaction” leave alone “business transactions” within the meaning of Section 64(1)(c).

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In this case, the society is a co-operative bank and ordinarily a co-operative bank cannot be said to be engaged in business when it lets out properties owned by it. Therefore, it seems to us that the present dispute between a tenant and a member of the bank in a building, which has subsequently been acquired by the bank cannot be said to be a dispute touchingthe business of thebank, and the appeal should fail on this short ground.On the facts of the case before it, this Court incase (supra) held that the act of initiating proceedings for removing an act of trespass by a stranger from a flat allotted to one of its members could not but be a part of its business. This Court held that it was as much the concern of the society formed with the object of providing residential accommodation to its members, which was normally its business, as it was of the members to ensure that the flats are in occupation of its members in accordance with the bye laws framed by it, rather than the occupation of a person who had no subsisting reason to be in such occupation. The decision in Deccancase (supra) was on facts held to be distinguishable and resort to proceedings under Section 64 of the Act, held legally permissible.Purchase of land for being used in the manner set out in the objects extracted above is, therefore, one of the facets of the business that the society undertakes. Such purchase is directly linked to the object of developing the acquired land for allotment of house sites to the members of the society. There is, therefore, a clear and discernible nexus between acquisition/purchase of land and the object of providing house sites to the members which under the circumstances happens to be the main business of the society. It is not a case where the facts giving rise to the dispute are not relatable to the objects of the society or where the connect between the facts constituting the dispute and the objects of the society is remote or their interplay remarkably tenuous or peripheral, as was the position in Co-operative Central Bankcase (supra) involving alteration of the conditions of service of the employees of the society. We have in that view no hesitation in holding that the dispute arising out of the purchase of the land owned by the respondents was, in the instant case, a dispute touchingthe business of theappellant-society. Question No.1 is answered accordingly.In the case at hand, that there was a single transaction whereunder the respondents-sellers had agreed to sell to the appellant-society a parcel of land to the society, for use by the society in terms of the objects for which it is established. It may, in that sense, be a transaction that touchesthe business of theappellant-society but it is common ground that the respondents were not in the business of selling land as a commercial or business activity for it iscase that the respondents were property dealers or had a land bank and were, as a systematic activity, selling land to make money. If the respondents were agriculturists who had agreed to sell agricultural land to the appellant-company, the transaction was, from their point of view, not a. For ought we know that transaction may have been prompted by family necessity, poverty or some such other compulsion. Such a transaction without any business element in the same could not constitute ave alonein the meaning of Section