- (1.) THIS writ petition by Ufa. Nehru Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. , jodhpur, is directed against an order of the Rajasthan State Co-operative tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 29-7-1976, rejecting an appeal preferred by it under Section 123 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that it was not maintainable, and that dated 12-11-1976 dismissing an application for review preferred by it.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 Ramchandra, who is a member of the petitioner society, raised a dispute under Section 75 of the Act claiming that a sum of Rupees 16,143. 50 p. was due to him from the Society. In his statement of claim, the respondent No. 4 asserted that various sums were deposited by him with the society in his own name and in the name of his relations. In its written statement, there is an admission by the Society of these allegations, though it pleaded that the claim having been preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed therefor, the claim should not be entertained. The sole arbitrator by his award dated 5-1-1976 decreed the claim. The Rajasthan State Co-operative tribunal, Jaipur, by its order dated 29-7-1976 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that the award being by consent of the parties, the appeal was not maintainable. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred a review on the ground that Explanation to Section 123 incorporates by reference Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not Section 96 and, therefore, Section 96 (3) of the Code was not applicable, so as to preclude the appeal. The Tribunal by its order dated 12-11-1976, however, rejected the contention.
(3.) THE order of the Tribunal was assailed on several grounds, namely, (i) the court is not entitled to read words into a section and, therefore, the Tribunal was in error in reading Section 96 in Section 123, (ii) the jurisdiction of the arbitrator under Section 75 (1) (b) is confined to settling disputes between a member and Society. Admittedly, some of the amounts claimed belonged to others who were not members of the Society and, therefore, the award was nullity, (iii) the Arbitrator having failed to render the award within the period of three months as fixed in the letter of appointment Ex. 13, the award was illegal and void and, therefore, cannot be acted upon. There is, in my view, no substance in any of these contentions.;