Court sets aside injunction, emphasizes exclusive jurisdiction of Special Duty Officer under Co-operative Societies Act. Conflict between Acts noted.

The Court allowed the revision application, setting aside the injunction granted by the Small Causes Court. It emphasized the exclusive jurisdiction of the Officer on Special Duty under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for resolving disputes between the society and its members. The Court highlighted the conflict between the Bombay Rent Act and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, emphasizing that the Small Causes Court should not have granted the injunction due to differing scopes of the Acts and the potential for multiple judgments on the same issue.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to restrain parties from proceeding with arbitration under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act in relation to the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.
3. Conflict between the Bombay Rent Act and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act regarding jurisdiction over disputes.
4. Exclusive jurisdiction of the Officer on Special Duty under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involved a dispute between a Co-operative society and tenants regarding possession of premises. The Co-operative society filed an arbitration case under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, while the tenants filed a suit in the Small Causes Court seeking an interim injunction. The main issue was whether the Small Causes Court had the jurisdiction to restrain parties from proceeding with arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Act.

2. The petitioner argued that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, which prohibits restraining parties from instituting or prosecuting proceedings in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought. The petitioner contended that the Officer on Special Duty under the Co-operative Societies Act was considered a court, and thus the Small Causes Court acted without jurisdiction.

3. The judgment highlighted the conflict between the Bombay Rent Act and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act in terms of jurisdiction over disputes. The Court emphasized that the Small Causes Court should have refrained from granting the injunction, considering the differing scopes of the two Acts and the potential for multiple judgments on the same issue.

4. The judgment also discussed the exclusive jurisdiction of the Officer on Special Duty under the Co-operative Societies Act for resolving disputes between the society and its members. The Court noted that the determination of the dispute would depend on the specific facts and materials related to the premises and the rights of the parties involved, emphasizing that the Officer on Special Duty was the appropriate forum for such disputes.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the revision application, setting aside the injunction granted by the Small Causes Court and emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Officer on Special Duty under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for resolving disputes between the society and its members.

---