Nishita Mhatre - (1.) The petition challenges the order passed by the Co-operative Court holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. The Appellate Court has confirmed this order and that order has also been challenged in the present petition.
(2.) The undisputed facts giving rise to the petition are as follows : The petitioner and the respondent had certain commercial transactions due to which some amounts according to the respondent were payable to the Trust by the Petitioners. A dispute was therefore preferred on 11-1-1988 before the Cooperative Court for recovery of the amounts due and payable by the Petitioner. The petitioner applied to the Co-operative Court for framing issues regarding the maintainability of the application under section 121 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The application was opposed by the respondent. The Cooperative Court has held that since the respondent was a creditor and the petitioner was a society any dues payable by the Society to a creditor could be recovered by filing a dispute under section 91. The Co-operative Court has relied on the decision of the Appellate Court in Appeal No. 305 of 1989 decided on 22-11-1990 where it had held that a creditor can file a dispute under section 91 for recovery of dues from a society. The Revisional Court has while confirming the order held that the dispute touches the business of the society i.e. the business of supplying gas, appliances and accessories and therefore, the dispute is maintainable.
(3.) Mr. Walawalkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is a grave miscarriage of justice due to the orders impugned in this petition. He points out that section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not contemplate a dispute with regard to a transaction such as the one between the petitioner-society and the respondent trust. He submits that it was a pure and simple commercial transaction between two parties. The respondent claims certain amounts were due and payable to it for goods sold and delivered by it to the Petitioner which was disputed by the latter. He points out that unless the amount is decided by the competent Court and there is a decree passed against the petitioner for recovery of that amount, it would not be liable to pay the amount under the MCS Act. He contends that in any event, the transaction between the parties was not one which touched the business of the society and, therefore, both the Courts below had erred in deciding that the Co-operative Court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent.;