Prior statutory notice and High Court jurisdiction governed co-operative and trademark suits, defeating the challenge to maintainability and forum.

Prior statutory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was mandatory where the claim related to an act touching the society's authorised business, and the requirement applied even though the cause of action was pleaded in tort; the suit was therefore not maintainable without notice. In trademark matters under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, suits had to be instituted in a court not inferior to a District Court, and the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction within Greater Bombay answered that description; the City Civil Court did not displace that forum. The appeal failed on both notice and jurisdiction, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prior statutory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was mandatory and, on failure to serve it, the suit was not maintainable; (ii) Whether a suit falling under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, valued at Rs. 50,000 or less, was triable by the High Court or the Bombay City Civil Court.

Issue (i): Whether prior statutory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was mandatory and, on failure to serve it, the suit was not maintainable.

Analysis: The expression "any act touching the business of the society" was construed broadly, but with the business reference confined to the actual trading or commercial activity authorised by the society's bye-laws. On the pleadings and the bye-laws, manufacture of alcoholic products from molasses was treated as a complementary product activity within the society's business. The Court further held that the statutory notice requirement applied even where the cause of action was framed in tort and not merely in contract.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 164 was mandatory, and the suit was not maintainable without it, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit falling under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, valued at Rs. 50,000 or less, was triable by the High Court or the Bombay City Civil Court.

Analysis: Section 105 requires such suits to be instituted in a court not inferior to a District Court. The term "District Court" was read with Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which the High Court, exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction within Greater Bombay, answers that description. The Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 was harmonised with the special statute, and the Court held that suits under Section 105 arising within Greater Bombay fall on the Original Side of the High Court irrespective of pecuniary valuation.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, against the appellant's challenge.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the statutory notice issue and the jurisdiction issue, and the plaintiff's suit stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit against a co-operative society in respect of an act relating to its authorised business requires prior notice under Section 164, and a trademark infringement suit under Section 105 must be filed in the High Court when that court is the District Court within the territorial jurisdiction concerned, regardless of pecuniary value.

---