Representative suit in dispute under mcs act
Pravin Nadkarni
(Querist) 21 August 2014
This query is : Resolved
In the Cooperative Court u/s 91 of MCS Act.
Brief Facts: It was contended by the Disputant (member of a coop. society) that there was excess maintenance charge collected from him over the period because a wrong method (already proved as per Dy. Registrar's orders & as per subsequent General Body) of levying monthly charge was adopted by the Society. The Disputant also contended that there are multiple members who are also affected being in the same class as he is, and therefore have the same interest. The Opponent Society Management Committee (without having called for General Body Meeting on this subject matter) decided suo motu that the other members have shown any interest. The Disputant argued that no member is made aware of this suit and hence managing committee cannot assume that there are no members have the same interest. The Disputant also argued that the purpose of Representative Suit is to minimize the repetition of the suits on same subject matter.
The Cooperative Court Judge observed that there is no provision for CPC's Order 1, Rule 8 when the dispute is filed u/s 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
The judgement states that since Society is representing the members and is opposing this dispute, therefore it can be very well presumed that all members also opposing this dispute. To me the judgement fails to recognize no such discussion took place vide General Meeting.
The judge however while deciding as above also states that if any member is aggrieved by the aforementioned act can approach court. This is where I find dilemma, that if the Disputant wins the case, it will lead to multiplicity of the suits related to same subject matter (overcharging of maintenance), unless O1-R8 is granted.
Can anyone suggest if the judgement is right or wrong? Reading of Section 91 MCS Act is essential to understand this particular problem.
Thanks,
Pravin Nadkarni
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 21 August 2014
Without knowing the whole case history , it is difficult to advise.
If you are aggrieved by the decision, prefer an appeal.
Pravin Nadkarni
(Querist) 21 August 2014
Where I fail to understand is that since the sole purpose of O1.R8 is to prevent multiplicity of the suits for same subject matter between 1 common party and other different parties, and the judgement already acknowledges that anyone who feels aggrieved can approach court, how can such provision of CPC be not applied u/s 91 of MCS Act, 1960 (The words "Notwithstanding anything...." in the beginning of this section are associated with respect to limited subsections. I think the methods mentioned in CPC are still applicable as far as proceedings are concerned. Please elaborate on this specific question of law.
Assuming, without proof, that managing committee was given to represent members when the subject matter itself attracts members' interest, I feel is wrong. Please suggest on this question of fact.
ABDUL RAZIQUE
(Expert) 21 August 2014
you self describe question with answer and answer with question. so what i describe it is out of my beyond.
M V Gupta
(Expert) 27 August 2014
The issue raised by the querist seems to be whether the suit filed by him before the Coop Court can be regarded as a representative suit to protect interests of other members of the Society similarly placed. As per the facts narrated by him he filed the suit in his name on the facts applicable to him, although the grounds may be applicable to others also. A person can be considered to have filed suit in his representative capacity only if he has authority from others in writing or he is an agent or a delegate or successor in interest etc. Otherwise not. the order passed by teh court in my view is correct.
