Case: Shamrao Vithal Co-Operative Bank Ltd Vs. Kasargod Pandhuranga Mallya

2. The appellant is a Co-operative Society registered in Bombay under the Bombay Act. The Head Office of the appellant is in Bombay and it has a branch in Mangalore. As the objects of the appellant were not confined to one State, it was governed by Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act of 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). The appellant made a claim under Section 54 of the Bombay Act in respect of a transaction which took place in Mangalore against the respondent who is a resident of Kasaragod, and was a Member of the appellant society. Both Mangalore and Kasaragod were at the relevant time in Madras Presidency The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bombay gave an award regarding that claim. The award was sought to be executed as a decree in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod. An objection to the execution of the decree was raised by the respondent on the ground that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bombay had no jurisdiction to pass the award and the same could not be executed as a degree in the Courts in Kerala. This objection was upheld by the Subordinate Judge and he dismissed the execution application. On appeal the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge was affirmed by the High Court. It was not disputed before the High Court that the appellant was governed by the provisions of the Central Act. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the passing of an award came within the expression control occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Central Act. This contention did not find favour with the High Court and in the result, the appeal was dismissed.

Reasoning:
6. There is, in our opinion, no force in the above contention because we do not agree with the underlying assumption of the above argument that the word control comprehends within itself the adjudication of a claim made by a co-operative society its members. The appellant society, as would appear from the resume of facts given above, established a branch in Managalore and had dealings there with the respondent who was a resident of Kasaragod. As the objects of the appellant society were extended to the Presidency of Madras, it should, in view of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Central Act, be deemed to have been registered under the law in force in the Presidency of Madras relating to co-operative societies. The law which was then in force, according to Mr. Naik, was the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act). Clause (f) of section 2 of that Act defines a registered society to mean a society registered or deemed to be registered under that Act. Section 51 of the Madras Act provides inter alia that if any dispute touching the business of a registered society between a member and that society between a member and the society arises, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision. Registrar has been defined in clause (g) of section 2 of the Madras Act to mean "a person appointed to perform the duties of a Registrar of Co-operative Societies under this Act and includes a person on whom all or any of the powers of a Registrar under the Act have been conferred."It would, therefore, follow that a dispute between the appellant and the respondent in respect of its dealings relating to its Mangalore branch would normally have to be adjudicated upon by the Registrar appointed under the Madras Act. The fact that for the purpose of control, the appellant society was governed by the Bombay Act would not, in our opinion, justify a departure from the above normal rule. The word control is synonymous with superintendence, management or authority to direct, restrict or regulate (See p. 442 of Words and Phrases (Vol. 9) Permanent Edition).Control is exercised by a superior authority in exercise of its supervisory power. Adjudication of disputes is a judicial or quasi-judicial function and it would, in our opinion, be unduly straining the meaning of the word control to hold that it also covers the adjudication of disputes between a co-operative society and its members. There is a clear distinction between jurisdiction to decide a dispute which is a judicial power and the exercise of control which is an administrative power and it would be wrong to treat the two as identical or equate one with the other.Argument has also been advanced that there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Deputy Registrar appointed under the Bombay Act for adjudicating upon the dispute between the parties and that it was at the best a case of lack of territorial jurisdiction. We find ourselves unable to accede to this contention because we are of the opinion that there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Registrar appointed under the Bombay Act for dealing with the dispute arising out of the dealings of the Mangalore branch of the appellant society with the respondent. The dispute between the parties as would appear from what has been discussed above, could only be adjudicated upon in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Act.