Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Therefore, although there may be only one Registrar of Cooperative Societies appointed by the State Government u/s 6 (1), even such persons who have been appointed to assist the Registrar u/s 6 (1) of the Act may be conferred on all the powers of the Registrar in respect of matters not falling u/s 26 by a general or special order of the State Government published in the official gazette. Abdul Gafoor vs. State of Bihar, 1983 PLJR 196: AIR 1983 Pat. 114. Section 48 is all pervasive. Therefore, whenever a dispute (including an election dispute) is raised, a reference has to be made to the Registrar. If a dispute is decided u/s 48 (1), read with section 48 (2) (b), the appellate forum is the Registrar himself under section 48 (6). ibid. If no dispute has been raised by way of reference before the Registrar u/s 48 (1) of the Act or for the matter, when such a dispute has not been decided by a person acting as the Registrar by viture of section 6 (2) of Act and no appeal is preferred under sub-section (6) of section 48 of the Act, the State Government would not be entitled to entertain such a dispute u/s 65A of the Act overriding the provision of section 48. ibid. Debts due to society from a member who ceased to be member on his retirement from service-Claim from past member-Limitation-In the circumstances of the case, claim held barred. P.M.G. Officers Co-op. Society vs. Abdul Quddus, 1963 BLJR 969. An award under the Co-operative Societies Act is not a decree, although it resembles a decree. Where an award is made against the estate of deceased member of Co-operative Society under section 48 of the Act, it is not a nullity because the Act makes definte provision tor an award against the estate of a deceased member. Such an award cannot be held to be a nullity on the analogy of a decree against a dead man being nullity. Ram Chandra Singh vs. Central Co- operative Bank Nawada, 1941 PWN 536. Where the plaintiff sued a Co-operative Union of which he was a member to recover arrears of rent on deposit made by him and the dispute related to the rate of interest, it was held that the suit did not lie in the Civil Court as it was barred by Sec. 48 J Bihar Co-operatiye Societies Act, 1935 [61 section 57 of the Act read with section 48 of the Act. Central Co-operative Union vs. Kamla Prasad, AIR 1937 Pat. 531: 18 PLT 255. Assistant Registrar has jurisdiction to determine the dispute u/s 48 (2). There is nothing in Secs. 15 and 16 which warrant a restricted meaning to be given to the language of the Explanation to Sec. 48 (1). Union of India vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 1963 BRLJ (Rev.) 18. This case has been overruled by Supreme Court, see AIR 1962 SC 1367: 1962 BLJR 68 (SC). This section puts no bar on transfer and authorises the. Registrar to transfer such of the cases as he may deem fit and proper. Hare Krishna Upadhaya vs. State of Bihar, 1979 BLJ 141. Registrar has the same power of review as vested in the civil court under C.PC. The Registrar can always interfere in exercise of this power, where earlier order were passed without referring to many material facts on record. If an order differing with the earlier order is passed in such a case, the Registrar cannot be said to have transgressed the limitations of review jurisdiction and to have acted as a Court of Appeal. Paras Nath Thakur vs. State of Bihar, 1986 PLJR 168 see also. Pandit Raghav Jha vs. Registrar, 1962 BRLJ (Rev.) 62. There is a clear distinction between a dismissal ir'J Ii mine and a dismissal with a speaking order. A dismissal in limine does not constitute a bar of the principle analogous to res judicata to a subsequent petition. The theory of merger does not apply to such a case. ibid. · A dispute referred to the Registrar under section 48 (c) can be either disposed of by the Registrar himself under section 48 (2) (a) or transferred for disposal under clauses (b) and (c) of section 48 (2). A right of appeal to the Registrar is given to person aggrieved by decisions given in disputes transferred or referred by the Registrar. Registrar can revise under section 56, only the cases decided by him under section 48 (2) (a). Section 46 is not attracted in case of appellate orders passed by Joint Registrar, and a revision application against order passed by another officer under section 48 (6) exercising powers of Registrar is not maintainable. Raghav Jha vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, AIR 1983 Pat. 137: 1983 BRLJ 75. Acquisition of land for execution of scheme to provide houses cannot be recognised as vesting any right in the Co-operative Society if there has been failure. on the' Society's part relating to the most essential part of the transaction, that is the payment of the price of the. land being acquired. A right of ownership would have arisen only when the price would have been paid and in the absence of that, no claim can be said to have accrued. Government will not be duty bound to settle the land with that society only and non else. Settlement of some part of acquired land with another society is not hit by doctrine of promissory estoppel. Postal Co-op. Home Construction Society Ltd. vs. Secretary to Government, 1984 PLJR 1 : AIR 1981 Pat. 133. The expression "save as expressly provided in this section" in sub-section (9) of Section 48 is of special significance. By use of the expression the legislature appears to have clearly laid down that provisions of other sections of the Act do not affect the finality of the order passed under Section 41. An order passed by the Deputy Registrar u/s 48 (6) of the Act cannot be revised by the Registrar u/s 56. Din Dayal Singh vs. Biscomaun, AIR 1976 Pat. 179: 1976 PLJR 130. 62 ] Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 [ Sec. 48 Where the society is in default or in arrears of Government revenue the settlement of sairat may be done with other societies or even individuals and the society in arrear cannot claim any priority in the matter on the ground that it operates in the area in which sairat lies. Daudpur Fisherman Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, 1981 BRLJ 219: AIR 1981 Pat. 294. Notice to the society must be deemed as notice to all its members. Notice to individual members is opposed to the very status of a co-operative society as a body corporate and is, therefore, unnecessary, lack of express provisions for issue of notice to individual members cannot be said to be violative of the principles of natural justice. Daman Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 973. When a matter falls under any specific provision, then it must be governed by that provision and not by other general provisions. Therefore where the society held its employee liable for shortage of assets put under his custody and charge by reason on his negligence or misconduct, the matter being fully covered by section 40 (1) (b), must mean that section 48 is not applicable. Uma Shankar Sharan Shrivastava vs. Biscomaun, 1985 PLJR 19: 1984 BBCJ 905: AIR 1985 Pat. 46. The scope of the dispute contemplated under section 48 is entirely different from one relating to a society's tiling a demand for misappropration, fraud and negligence etc. Every claim or demand cannot be put under the cover of section 48. ibid. Sections 40 and 48 are mutually exclusive and operate in altogether different field. While action under section 40 must be preceded by a proceeding uhder sections 33 to 37 no such pre-requisite or pre-condition is necessary for action under section 48. Kinjer Vyapar Manda/ Sahyog Samiti Ltd. vs. Deputy Registrar, 1986 PLJR 264 (FB); AIR 1968 Pat. 206 (Uma Shankar Shrivastava vs. Biscomaun, 1985 PLJR 19-- Overruled). Section 40 pertains to administrative power of the Registrar flowing only as a precondition from the results of an audit, inquiry, inspection or winding up-Section 40 is not attracted or applicable to reference of a disptue under section 48 by a society against its officer, agent or servant for defalcation of funds. ibid. Where appeal against the award of the Assistant Registrar has been filed before the Deputy Registrar and also simultaneously challenged before the High Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction, the Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to deal with matter during pendency of the writ petition. ibid. The flat in a Tenant Co-partnership Housing Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act can be attached and sold in execution of a decree against the allottee. Ramesh Himmat Lal Shah vs. H.J. Joshi, AIR 1975 SC 1470: (1975) 2 sec 105. Where the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has acquiesced in the appointment and has allowed the incumbent Secretary of the Co-operative Society to work for a very long period, it will not be open to the Registrar to set aside the appointment of the incumbent officer-bearer. Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. vs. Narayana Rath, AIR 1977 SC 112: (1977) 3 sec 576. After a Co-operative society has communicated a resolution for the expulsion of one of its members to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies tor his approval, a duty is cast upon the Registrar to exercise his power of according approval or disapp:val within the prescribed statutory period. If no action is taken by the Sec. 48 ] Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 [ 63 Registrar within the period provided by statute, his power to accord approval or disapproval to the resolution of the Co-operative Society lapses. Balasinar Nagrik Co-operative Bank vs. B.S. Pandya, AIR 1987 SC 849: (1987) 1 SCC 606. An election can only be invalidated in an election petition under this Section of the Act. If the same has not been done by any authority, even the government can proceed on the assumption that the election is ipsofacto void ab initio. Vijay Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar, PLJR 846: 1989 (1) BLJ 636. The proceedings under this section are in the nature of a civil suit, other wise cognizable by a civil court u/s 9 of the C.P.C. The statute has taken out the jurisdiction of the civil court and has conferred the same on the Registrar or a person exercising the power of the Registrar to decide the dispute touching the business or management of the society between its members, past members, their office bearers, agent, and officers or servants of the society. Yogendra Prasad vs. Additional Registrar, 1992 (1) PLJR 9 (SC). Validity of plural remedies, if available under the law, cannot be doubted. It is not correct to say that whenever a specific remedy is made available in law, the other remedy (more general in nature) necessarily gets excluded. If plural remedies are available to a person, he is tree to choose, until he elects one of them. Provisions of section 48 may be availed of for recovery of loss in preference to provisions of section 4 or vice-versa. Biscomaun vs. Uma Sankar Sharan, 1992 (2) PLJR (SC) 42. No electon of a Board of Directors can be set aside except by filing an election petition under Section 48 of the Act. Until that is done, the election held by the Annual General Meeting shall remain valid. The ipso dixit of the authority that the election is invalid in law would not warrant the dissolution of an election body. It is now well settled that no election can be said to be void ab initio merely on the suo motu assessment of a party or the Government. Validity of an election legal or factural has to be decided in the election petition. The non-consideration of these important documents and materials led to the passing of wrong order on the earlier occasion in favour of the petitioners and others. On this occasion when a review petition was filed, on referring to the relevant materials it was detected that a mistake apparent on the face of the record was committed. In this view of the matter, it cannot be accepted that the Registrar has transgressed the limitations of the reveiw jurisdiction and has acted as a court of appeal. Paras Nath Thakur vs. State of Bihiar, 1986 BLJ 673. The delay in filing election petition challenging the validity of election of office bearers of a Co-operative Society cannot be condoned because the provisions of Limitation Act, 1993 apply only to proceeding in "Courts" and not to appeals and applications before Statutory Bodies other than "Courts" such as quasijudicial Tribunals or Executive Authorities. Sita Ram Sah vs. State of Bihar, 1995 (1) PLJR 396. Where an order has been passed by the Registrar in respect of enrolment of a Co- operative society without full consideration of all relevant materials, the High Court may quash the order and remit the case for reconsideration of the Registrar for passing a fresh order. Managing Committee of M.G.M. Co-operative Society vs. Yogendra Sharma, 1996 (1) PLJR 882. The prescribed procedure under the Act must be strictly followed in case of expulsion of a Member, and notice to show cause must also be given. Smt. Sarladevi vs. Sailesh, AIR 1996 Bom, 98.] [Section 48- dispute regarding reduction in house rent allowance of the 64] Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 [ Sec. 48 employees of the Co-operative Bank falls within the ambit of the word "dispute" under this section-the term "business" in the section will also include "affairs of the society"-writ does not lie and dispute has to be decided first u/s 48 before coming to High Court. Bihar Co-op. Bank Emp. Union vs. Ranchi Khunti Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., 2000(4) PLJR 179. Section 48-word "business" occurring in this section has to be given a wide construction-principle of statutory construction "expressio unius exclusio alterius" applies. ibid.' Section 48 read with section 54 and rule 68-sum of central society due from primary society can be recovered also from individual members of primary society but only after the property of the society is insufficient to discharge the liability under the award-the recovery is to be made at the first instance from the property of the defaulting society and only thereafter from the concerned individual members. Sheo Shankar Prasad vs. Dy. Registrar Co-op. Society, 2000(1) PLJR 1057. Sections 48 and 54 read with Rule 68-Chairman and Secretary of a Weavers Society obtaining loan from Co-operative Bank for functioning of the Society-Debt Relief Scheme of 1990 announced by the Central Government which was implemented by the State also for waiver of loans upto Rs. 10,000/-- Society applying to the Assistant Registrar for waiver of loans to its members out of the ioans received from Co-operative Bank which was rejected by him and appellate authorities-subsequent certificate case for recovery of outstanding amount from Chairman and Secretary in their personal capacity---a mere reading of Section 54 makes it clear that an amount recoverable from a society u/s 48, apart from the property of the Society, the members may also be held liable to the extent of their limited liability---therefore in this case the members of the Managing Committee and the debtor-member ought to have been made opposite parties-Chairman and Secretary cannot be held personally liable for the dues which can be recovered by the Bank in accordance with Section 54 read with Rule 68. Mohammad Faizan vs. State of Bihar, 1997(1) PLJR 1028. Sections 48 and 54 read with Rule 68-- Chairman and Secretary obtaining a loan from Co-operative Bank for functioning of society after executing Bonds and documents-Chairman and Secretary not liable in their personal capacity for such loan in absence of any case of misappropriation of the funds by them and no proceeding u/s 40 of the Act having been taken up. ibid. Section 48-claim for enrolment of 452 members of a Society whose strength and nominal capital, as per its bye-laws was fixed as 800 and Rs. 20,000/- with each share valued at Rs. 25/- -eventhough the authorities to whom the dispute was referred by the High Court to determine the validity of membership of new 452 applicants who had filled and submitted their application forms held that they should be regarded as members of the Society, they were not enrolled as members on the ground that there are no shares left to be allotted as all the 800 shares have been purchased by existing 211 members---since the question whether no share is there to be allotted or there was any raise in the nominal capital of the Society from existing Rs. 20,000/- subsequently, are questions of facts which could not be decided in the writ application, matter remanded back to authority under the Act for hearing and a fresh decision. Mg. Committee of Munger Gun Manufacturer's Co-op.Society vs. Yogendra Sharma, 1996(1) PLJR 882. Section 48 read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution-alternative remedy- normally the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the writ court- however, a writ court must act under self imposed restraint having regard to the existence of alternative remedy especially in matters of election dispute-only existence of extraordinary circumstances will justify by passing of alternative remedy. Vishwanath Sahni vs, State of Bihar, 1995(1) PLJR 535. [ Sec. 48 # Sec. 48 ] Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 [65 Section 48-allotment of lands for members of a society-some members left out by society-High Court ordered re-carving of some plots as well as from small part to accommodate the remaining members-instead of recarving and using small park, office bearers allotted portions from big park-cancellation of plots of such members by P.R.D.A.- cancellation valid-big park cannot be touched-no sympathetic consideration can be available to such members-no order now can be issued cancelling the earlier proceedings. Shaikh Mohd. Ali vs. Bihar State Housing Board, 1989 PLJR 477. Section 48-- Termination simpliciter of employees' service reference to Assistant Registrar on the question of such termination, not permissible. Tisco Oriya Co-op. Credit Society vs. Asstt. Registrar, 1975 PLJR 290 (FB). · Section 48- Expression 'election dispute'-meaning of-dispute touching the business of co-operative society, is an election dispute, Narain Mishra vs. State of Bihar, 1985 PLJR 579. Section 48--Election disputes also come squarely within the ambit of this section. Chandeshwar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 159 (FB). Section 48 - The powers are judicial in nature. ibid. Section 48-- Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot give directions to a Co- operative Society to admit a particular heir of deceased member of that Society as its member. To become a member one must be the holder of at least one share either by valid transfer or devolution of interest. Patliputra Co-operative House Construction Society vs. State of Bihar, 1972 PLJR 481. Section 48(1)-- Question regarding irregular appointment of Accountant of the Society could be a dispute within Section 48(1), but it did not fall within Cl. (a} or (b} of sub-section (1). Rama Shankar Tewari vs. Gopal Banerjee, 1971 PLJR 377. Section 48(1)---observance of Natural Justice-where order of Assistant Registrar affected question of appointment of the petitioner, he was entitled to a notice to show cause. ibid. Section 48 & Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959-- Rule 68, sub-rule 13(a)-Rule 68, sub-rule 13(a) does not prescribe any particular form for reference of election dispute to the Registrar-such Rule, not exhaustive and does not control Section 48 of the Act- reference of an election dispute by the District Magistrate is a valid reference. Sri Narain Mishra vs. State of Bihar, 1985 PLJR 579. Section 48 r/w rule 33 a dispute between Co-operative Bank and its employees is not amenable to writ jurisdiction where the Bank is completely privately managed and controlled by its Board of Directors-the situation may be different where a society has been superseded and special officer has been appointed by the Registrar. S. Itrat Hussain vs. Registrar Co. op Societies, 2001 (2) PLJR 253. Cancellation of allotment. Non-observance of principles of natural justice. Although the Registration Act, 1908 does not specifically provide any mode or manner in which a deed of transfer earlier registered before the Registrar of Document could be cancelled by a subsequent deed of annulment but even if the Registrar of Document had the power to admit such a deed of annulment for registration, it had to be done as per the requirement of principles of natural justice and cannot be done to the detriment of the person in whose favour the earlier deed of transfer was registered. Once a property is transferred by a registered document, a vested civil right devolves upon the transferee and to nullify such vested right only a civil court of competent jurisdiction has the authority and the Registrar has no such power or authority of a civil court to decide right and title of a party. Swati Pande vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 2007(2) PLJR 525.] 66] Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 . [ Secs. 49-52 49., Registrar liquidators and arbitrators to have certain powers of Civil Court.-- Subject to any rules, the Registrar, any person authorised to hold an inquiry under section 35 or an inspection under section 36, any liquidator, any person exercising the powers of a Registrar, or any arbitrator or arbitrators appointed under section 48, shall in so far as such powers are necessary for carrying out any of the purposes of this Act, have power to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and parties cancerned and to examine them upon oath and to compel the production of any books, accounts, documents or property by the same means and, so far as may be, in the same manner as if provided in the case of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).