Co-operative society jurisdiction turns on administrative control, not dispute adjudication, for branch transactions in another State.

For a multi-unit co-operative society, the deeming provision for registration, control and dissolution in another State does not transfer adjudicatory power to that State's Registrar. "Control" is limited to administrative superintendence and does not include deciding disputes between a society and its members. A dispute touching the business of the branch must therefore be referred to the Registrar under the law governing the State where the branch dispute arose. On that footing, an award made by the Bombay Deputy Registrar in relation to the Mangalore branch was without jurisdiction and could not be executed as a decree.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Registrar under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act had jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute arising out of transactions of the appellant's branch situated in another State, in view of the deeming and control provisions of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act and the scheme of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act.

Analysis: The appellant society, though registered in Bombay, had a branch at Mangalore and its objects extended beyond one State, so it was governed by the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act. Under section 2(1) of that Act, a society is deemed registered in the other State for the limited purposes of registration, control and dissolution, but the law of the State of actual registration continues to govern those matters. The Court held that the word "control" denotes administrative superintendence and does not include adjudication of disputes between a society and its members. A dispute touching the business of a registered society was, under section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, required to be referred to the Registrar under that Act. Accordingly, the dispute arising out of the Mangalore branch could only be decided under the Madras Act and not by the Bombay Registrar.

Conclusion: The award made by the Deputy Registrar under the Bombay Act was without jurisdiction and could not be executed as a decree.

Final Conclusion: The execution application failed because the proper forum for adjudication was the Registrar under the Madras Act, and the challenged award was not legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: For a multi-unit co-operative society, the statutory reference to "control" covers only administrative supervision and not adjudication of disputes, so jurisdiction to decide such disputes lies with the Registrar under the law governing the State in which the branch dispute arose.

---