1953 (4) TMI 37 - HC - Indian Laws

Deputy Registrar's Jurisdiction Confirmed in Election Dispute under Madras Cooperative Societies Act

M.S. Madhava Rao Versus D.V.K. Surya Rao

The court upheld the Deputy Registrar's jurisdiction to set aside the election of directors, determining that the dispute fell within the scope of Section ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the expression 'disputes touching the business of a registered society' under Section 51, Madras Cooperative Societies Act.2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to set aside the election of directors.3. Preliminary objections regarding the petitioners' challenge to the jurisdiction.4. Meaning and scope of 'business of a registered society' under Section 51 of the Act.5. Validity of the election of directors and the subsequent actions by the Registrar.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the expression 'disputes touching the business of a registered society' under Section 51, Madras Cooperative Societies Act:The court examined the scope and ambit of the expression 'disputes touching the business of a registered society' under Section 51 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act. It was noted that the word 'touching' was intended to enlarge the scope of the word 'business,' indicating that disputes need not directly arise out of the business but should have reference or relation to it. The court concluded that the expression should be given its full import, encompassing not only the direct activities but also matters related to the corporate activities of the society.2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to set aside the election of directors:The main contention was whether the dispute relating to the election of the Board of Directors fell within the purview of Section 51 of the Act. The court held that the election of directors by the general body was part of the business of the society as per the bye-laws and the Act. Thus, the Deputy Registrar had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and set aside the election.3. Preliminary objections regarding the petitioners' challenge to the jurisdiction:The court addressed two preliminary objections. The first was that the petitioners did not initially object to the Deputy Registrar's jurisdiction, which was overruled based on the principle that initial want of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or acquiescence. The second objection was that the petitioners' conduct in filing a revision petition precluded them from challenging the jurisdiction. This was also overruled as the petitioners had already objected to the jurisdiction before filing the revision petition.4. Meaning and scope of 'business of a registered society' under Section 51 of the Act:The court elaborated on the meaning of 'business' in the context of the Act. It was held that the business includes all activities within the scope of the objects of the society, as defined by the Act, the rules, and the bye-laws. The court rejected the narrow interpretation that confined 'business' to the objects of the society alone. Instead, it included all activities necessary and incidental to carry out the objects of the society.5. Validity of the election of directors and the subsequent actions by the Registrar:The court examined the validity of the election of directors and the subsequent actions taken by the Registrar, including the supersession of the Board and the appointment of a special officer. It was concluded that the election dispute was within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar as it related to the business of the society. Consequently, the Deputy Registrar's order setting aside the election was upheld, and the writ petitions challenging the Registrar's actions were dismissed.Conclusion:The court dismissed W.P. No. 632 of 1951 with costs and W.P. No. 79 of 1952 without costs, upholding the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to set aside the election of the directors and affirming that the dispute fell within the scope of Section 51 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act.