SHAMRAO VITHAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED Vs. KASARGOD PANDHURANGA MALLYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of Kerala High Court affirming on appeal, the order of the Lower Court whereby the appellant Bank's application for execution of an award made under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act. 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) was dismissed.

(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.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Naik on behalf of the appellant. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Before dealing with the argument advance on behalf of the appellant, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 2 of the Central Act. The same reads as under:-