2009 (4) TMI 1007 - HC - Indian Laws

Revisionary Authority retains jurisdiction over proceedings initiated pre-conversion

The Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The court held that the Revisionary Authority under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act retained jurisdiction over proceedings ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Revisionary Authority under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act).2. Applicability of Section 154 of the MCS Act to proceedings filed by societies converted into multi-State cooperative societies.3. Impact of the conversion of a cooperative society into a multi-State cooperative society on pending proceedings.4. Interpretation of Section 22 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (Multi-State Act).5. Applicability of Section 84 of the Multi-State Act to disputes involving multi-State cooperative societies.6. Relevance of Section 126 of the Multi-State Act to pending legal proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Revisionary Authority under Section 154 of the MCS Act:The petitioner, initially registered under the MCS Act, filed recovery proceedings under Section 101 of the MCS Act, which were dismissed by the Assistant Registrar. The petitioner then sought revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act. However, during the pendency of this application, the petitioner converted into a multi-State cooperative society. The Divisional Joint Registrar dismissed the revision application citing lack of jurisdiction, based on the petitioner's new status under the Multi-State Act.2. Applicability of Section 154 of the MCS Act to Proceedings Filed by Societies Converted into Multi-State Cooperative Societies:The court examined whether the revisionary authority under the MCS Act retained jurisdiction over applications filed before the conversion of the society into a multi-State cooperative society. It was argued that the right to appeal or revision is vested at the time of initiating the proceedings and is governed by the law in force at that time. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, which established that the right of appeal is a substantive right vested from the date of the institution of the suit.3. Impact of the Conversion of a Cooperative Society into a Multi-State Cooperative Society on Pending Proceedings:The court noted that neither the MCS Act nor the Multi-State Act expressly barred the jurisdiction of the MCS Act authorities over proceedings filed before the conversion of the society. The absence of provisions for transferring pending proceedings to the authorities under the Multi-State Act indicated that the legislature did not intend to affect pending proceedings upon such conversion.4. Interpretation of Section 22 of the Multi-State Act:Section 22 of the Multi-State Act outlines the process for converting a cooperative society into a multi-State cooperative society. The court highlighted that the conversion and subsequent registration under the Multi-State Act do not inherently nullify or affect proceedings initiated under the MCS Act before the conversion.5. Applicability of Section 84 of the Multi-State Act to Disputes Involving Multi-State Cooperative Societies:Section 84 of the Multi-State Act pertains to the arbitration of disputes involving multi-State cooperative societies. The court determined that this section applies to new disputes arising after the conversion and not to proceedings already instituted under the MCS Act. The court emphasized that there was no legislative intent to annul proceedings under the MCS Act upon the conversion of a society.6. Relevance of Section 126 of the Multi-State Act to Pending Legal Proceedings:Section 126 of the Multi-State Act addresses the repeal of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, and includes saving provisions for pending legal proceedings. The court interpreted that this section does not apply to proceedings under the MCS Act that remain unaffected by the conversion of a society into a multi-State cooperative society. The court rejected the argument that Section 126(6) could be construed to include proceedings pending at the time of conversion.Conclusion:The court set aside the impugned order dated 14.8.2008, restored the revision application to file, and directed the Divisional Joint Registrar to decide the application on merits. The court concluded that the authorities under the MCS Act retained jurisdiction over proceedings initiated before the conversion of the petitioner into a multi-State cooperative society, and no legislative provision indicated otherwise.