1 sa210.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.210/2026 Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd. and others ..V/s.. Babulal Chaturbhuj Agrawal and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. D.P. Bhongade, Counsel for the appellants. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATED : 15.9.2026. Heard. 2. The substantial questions of law framed in this appeal on 27.05.2026 are as follows:- (i) Whether the special civil suit is maintainable, once the remedy availed for the same cause before the Arbitrator? (ii) Whether the respondents have acceded to the jurisdiction of Arbitrator, once the MJC No.57/1993 was filed? (iii) Whether the learned Civil Judge Senior Division lack inherent jurisdiction to try the suit, once Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act debar the jurisdiction of Civil Court? 3. The appellants are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No.109/1995. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of the contractual amount. The defendants appeared in the suit, but they did not file their written statement. However, they contested the suit by cross-examining the plaintiffs’ witnesses. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. 4. The defendants filed an appeal. Initially, the Appellate Court remanded the matter. The said order was 2026:BHC-NAG:12556 2 sa210.2026 challenged before this Court. This Court directed the Appellate Court to decide the appeal after considering the documents produced on record by the defendants. Thereafter, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this second appeal on the substantial questions of law framed above. 5. The defendant No.1 is the registered co-operative society. In the year 1991 defendant No.1 had decided to sell Tur and other grains from different godowns of defendant No.1. For that tender notice was issued on 22.07.1991. Considering the terms and conditions in the tender notice, the plaintiffs decided to purchase 10000 quintals of Tur stored in the godowns at Nandurbar and Nababpur at the rate of Rs.1,063/- per quintal. The bargain was settled on 30.07.1991. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement plaintiffs were required to pay 10 percent of the total purchase price of the Tur and, therefore, on 03.08.1991 the plaintiffs deposited an amount of Rs.10,63,000/- as an advance. However, inspite of requests from the plaintiffs, defendants did not deliver quantity of Tur to the plaintiffs till 05.03.1992. There was some dispute between the officers of the defendant No.1 about the sale of the Tur to the plaintiffs. Inspite of demand remaining quantity of Tur was not delivered. The defendants used to raise false grounds. The defendants pretended that they were ready to give delivery of the remaining quantity of Tur but plaintiffs were at fault. In order to suppress their fault they started demanding full amount 3 sa210.2026 of the remaining quantity of Tur, godown charges and interest. As a matter of fact, the stock was not available with the defendants as Tur was used for preparing pulses to be supplied to the Ashram Schools run by defendant No.1. Finally by letter dated 14.08.1992 defendants informed the plaintiffs that by office order of defendant No.1 dated 03.07.1991 the agreement with the plaintiffs was cancelled and the advance of the plaintiffs was forfeited. Thus, the defendants have illegally cancelled the contract between them and the plaintiffs. Because of cancellation of the contract and forfeiture of the amount of deposit of the plaintiffs, they issued registered post notice on 24.04.1993 to the defendants under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the notice was also sent to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune. Those notices were received by the defendants and thereafter after following the due procedure the suit was filed. The defendants appeared but have not filed their written statement but contested the matter. The suit was decreed. The appeal was filed. The Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The appellants have brought to the notice of this Court that earlier MJC No.57/1993 was filed for appointment of Arbitrator and they have exhausted the remedy available to plaintiffs and, therefore, suit is not maintainable. It appears from the record that the defendants were not ready to refer the matter to 4 sa210.2026 Arbitrator and, therefore, it was subsequently withdrawn by filing a pursis. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of the amount as the arbitration proceedings could not be proceeded with. Though there was an arbitration clause, the defendants refused to agree to the appointment of an Arbitrator and, therefore, the suit was filed. 8. The question for consideration in this second appeal is whether the suit is maintainable when the remedy of arbitration had already been availed for the same cause of action. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that though the defendants refused for appointment of Arbitrator, the arbitration award was passed behind the back of the plaintiffs. The said award was not brought to the notice of either the Trial Court or the Appellate Court. The letter dated 24.10.1996 shows that the arbitration award was not produced before the Court within the stipulated period of one month. Therefore, the award could not be executed and the arbitration proceedings could not be treated as valid or continuing. Considering this fact there is no question of the plaintiffs having first availed the remedy of arbitration and thereafter filing the suit. The suit is, therefore, maintainable. Secondly, in the facts of the present case, there is no question of the plaintiffs having acceded to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The plaintiffs have filed MJC for appointment of Arbitrator and as the defendants were not agree for appointment of Arbitrator, they 5 sa210.2026 withdrew it and filed suit after following due procedure. The third question relates to the bar under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have held that the plaintiffs were not members of the Society. Therefore, the bar under Section 91 of the said Act is not applicable. 10. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) Tambaskar. Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 23/09/2026 10:12:57