Dismissed

Chandrakant Hari Badhe and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Aug 2012WP/11351/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The court held that Consumer Protection Act remedies are additional to those in Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. It also affirmed that the corporate veil can be lifted against co-operative society members in cases of fraud.

What did the court decide?

Precautionary order declaring lack of jurisdiction and prohibiting the forum was set aside as jurisdiction exists under Consumer Protection Act.

Chandrakant Hari Badhe and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp1135110.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11351 OF 2010

¶3

Chandrakant Hari Badhe and others

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India and others

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Mr.G.V.Wani, advocate for petitioners. Mr.Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, G.P. for Respondent No. 2. Respondent No.3 deleted. Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶9

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ. AND R.M.BORDE, J. DATE :27th August, 2012.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1 In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners, 23 in number, have sought a declaration that provisions of Sections 88 and 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, will prevail over the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Petitioners have also prayed for writ of prohibition against Respondent No.3 – Jalgaon District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, declaring that the said forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceedings against present petitioners as office bearers of Respondent No.5 Society, which is a co-operative society registered under the

¶12

¶13

wp1135110.odt

¶14

provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

¶15

2 Petitioners herein are Respondents along with Respondent No.5 society in the proceedings pending before the Forum under Consumer Protection Act in respect of deposits made by the members with Respondent No.5 society and compensation is claimed from the petitioners also.

¶16

3 Petitioners raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the proceedings against the petitioners before the forum under the Consumer Protection Act. It appears that most of the proceedings are still pending and forum under the Consumer Protection Act has not decided the said preliminary objection. It appears that the matter is, thus, pending before the forum under Consumer Protection Act upon the petitioners having raised above preliminary objection.

¶17

4 Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that since a special machinery is provided under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act for fixing personal liability on the petitioners, the forum under Consumer Protection Act has no jurisdiction to decide and proceed against the petitioners who are functioning as Directors of Respondent No.5-Society. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision dated 22.12.2010 in Writ Petition No.5223 of 2009 and connected matters.

¶18

5 On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondents has placed strong reliance on the judgment dated 07.12.2011 by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2011 ( Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular

¶19

¶20

wp1135110.odt

¶21

Operators Association of India & others) and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mandatai Sambhaji Pawar & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & another , reported in 2011 (4) MhLJ 790, in support of the contention that remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy in addition to the remedy provided under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and that the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum and other authorities under Consumer Protection Act is not excluded expressly or by necessary implication by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

¶22

6 Reliance is also placed on the judgment dated 03.08.2012 of another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.11356 of 2010 (Shri Mahendra Vitthal Raverkar & others Vs. The Union of India & others) and companion matters, wherein judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5223 of 2009 was also considered.

¶23

7 Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the controversy sought to be raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision dated 07.12.2011 of the Supreme Court in the case of Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India & others , and also in the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mandatai Sambhaji Pawar and another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others , reported in 2011 (4) MhLJ 790. The preliminary objection raised by petitioners, therefore, must be overruled.

¶24

8 Following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy in addition to the remedy

¶25

¶26

wp1135110.odt

¶27

provided under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and that the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum and other authorities under the Consumer Protection Act is not excluded expressly or by necessary implication by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Following aforesaid decisions, we also hold that doctrine of lifting the Corporate Veil is equally applicable in respect of a co-operative society where the members seek a direction or order against the members of the Managing Committee on the ground of fraud or other well recognised grounds, as discussed in the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Mandatai Sambhaji Pawar & another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2011 (4) MhLJ 790).

¶28

9 This petition is accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms and it is open to the petitioners to raise all available contentions in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mandatai Sambhaji Pawar & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others .

CHIEF JUSTICE

R.M.BORDE, J.

adb/wp1135110

Chandrakant Hari Badhe and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Hari Badhe and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Ahmednagar Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vasantrao Chudaman Salunke Vs Shri. Nagai and Co. Dhule and Ors.

Kishan Anandrao Khandekar Vs Deputy Commissioner (Supply) and Ors.

The Village Water Supply and Sanitation Committee Tamasa Thr. President Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Santosh Rangnath Pandhare Vs the State Ofl Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Vedkumar Kalra Vs the Union of India and Anr.