Registrar co-opertavie
laxmanram
(Querist) 08 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
ARE THE POWERS VESTED IN REGISTRAR CO-
OPERATIVE WHILE ACTING AS ARBITRATOR IS AKIN
TO THAT OF A CIVIL COURT?
CAN HE APPOINT A RECEIVER?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 08 November 2011
each state has it s own cooperative society act . where are you located?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 08 November 2011
•To settle disputes referred to him in prescribed manner by deciding it himself or by referring the same for disposal to any officer exercising the powers of Registrar or by referring the same for disposal to Arbitrator
•To order winding up of a co-operative society and cancellation of registration of societies
•To order distraint and sale of the produce of the mortgaged land , including the standing crops thereon for of any sum due to primary co-operative credit society or central co-operative bank and central co-operative land development bank
•To appoint Receiver in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for the purpose of conduct of sale and delivery of possession of any property sold under Chapter XIII of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act,1983
ajay sethi
(Expert) 08 November 2011
relevant extracts from judgement
Satya Pal Anand vs The Punjabi Housing Co.Operative ... on 3 August, 2011
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No. 14548/2008
DIVISION BENCH Hon,ble Shri Justice Sushil Harkauli & Hon'ble Shri Justice U.C. Maheshwari
Satya Pal Anand
Vs.
The Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. and others.
Apart the above long before on arising the occasion the Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Bal Vyasi Vs. Mahila Ujjala reported in 1973, MPLJ, Page 941 has settled the principles for appointment of the Receiver, which are still covering such field. The same are as under:-
14. Principles relating to appointment of receiver may now be recapitulated as under:-
(1) Generally stated, the object of appointment of receiver is preservation of the subject matter of the litigation pending a judicial determination of the rights of the parties to it.
(2) The rule embodies in Order 40, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code empowers the Court to appoint a
receiver whenever it appears to it to be just and convenient to do so. The language employed in
the Rule leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court.
(3) The Court has fullest jurisdiction in the matter of appointment of receiver, but the discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily in an unregulated manner; it must be exercised judicially, cautiously and
according to legal principles on a consideration of the whole of the circumstances of the case.
(4) Appointment of receiver is recognized as one of the harshest remedies which the law provides for the enforcement of rights so that the jurisdiction must be exercised only in extreme cases.
(5) The Court does not, while considering the question whether a receiver should be appointed, arrive at any final decision on the merits of the case. Its aim is merely to preserve the status quo ante during litigation.
(6) Receiver cannot be appointed just because it is expedient or convenient to one of the parties to do so; nor merely because it will do no harm to do so. (7)When a person is in bona fide possession of the property in dispute, his possession should not be disturbed by appointment of receiver unless there is some substantial ground for such interference, such as a well founded fear that the property in suit will be dissipated or other irreparable mischief may be done unless the Court appoints a receiver. The plaintiff must not only show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, he must further show some emergency or danger or loss
demanding immediate action and, further the
plaintiff's own right must be reasonably clear and free from doubt.
(8) Although the jurisdiction of the trial Court is the matter of appointment of a receiver is discretionary, that discretion is liable to interfere, if it is not in accordance with the principles on which the judicial discretion must be exercised.
12.Keeping in view the aforesaid principles also, on examining the orders of the Dy. Registrar appointing the Receiver and modifying such order, (at latter stage), that same is not found to be passed in accordance with such principles. So in such circumstance, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society or the Tribunal had no option except to set aside the order passed by the Dy. Registrar and send back the matter again to trial court to decide the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with prescribed procedure. Thus, in such premises also the impugned order is not found faulted.
13.However, some of the observations made by the Tribunal in para 7 of its order on merits regarding the sale deed dated 6.7.04, while giving the direction to the trial court stating that "the Court of Dy. Registrar while considering the matter should also ensure that the second deed executed on 6.7.04 should also have a bearing in the matter and as long as this deed is not declared void by a competent court, the question of appointing a Receiver will not arise" do not appear to be proper and reasonable, hence the same is hereby omitted.
14.Although in the course of arguments, various case laws reported in different journals were cited by the petitioner but in the aforesaid circumstances, the same being distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the case at hand, are not helping to the petitioner.
15.In view of the aforesaid discussions, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with aforesaid observation. There shall be no order as to the costs.
(Sushil Harkauli) (U.C. Maheshwari) Judge Judge bk s
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No. 14548/2008
Satya Pal Anand
ajay sethi
(Expert) 08 November 2011
www.indiankanoon.org/doc/273046
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 08 November 2011
dear Laxman!
Its an enactment that each state has separately.
However all bars the jurisdiction of civil court in matters of disputes between two being present or past members or a member and society,hence in all most every legislation and rules framed there under it is expected that such rights that civil court enjoy for resolving a dispute must or might be getting enjoyed by these registrar also.
Better check the state act and rules and if find my guess wrong ,please feed back frankly.
