Dismissed

Gulshan Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd. v. Raghunandan

Rajasthan HC11 Aug 2023CR/35/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed a civil revision petition. The High Court held that the impugned order rejecting the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was correct. The court noted that no Section 8 arbitration application or Order VII Rule 11 application was raised at the first instance and the dispute did not pertain to the society's business.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned order allowing the plaint to proceed confirmed.

Gulshan Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:25503]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 35/2023

¶4

Gulshan Credit Co Operative Society Ltd., Through Its Chairman Ramesh Kumar Pahalwani (Sindhi) Son Shri Balchand Ji Pahalwani (Sindhi) Age 64 Years R/o 27 Sarvaritu Vilas Udaipur Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Raghunandan S/o Manaklal Ji Sharma, R/o 18 Battu Ji Ka Darwaja Jagdish Chowk Udaipur Raj.

¶8

Smt. Premlata W/o Raghunandan Ji Sharma, R/o 18 Battu Ji Ka Darwaja Jagdish Chowk Udaipur Raj.

¶9

Ramesh Kumar Pahalwani S/o Balchand Ji Pahalwani, By caste (Sindhi), R/o 27 Sarvaritu Vilas, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)

¶12

: Mr. Ajay Singh Rathore for Mr. Deelip Kawadia

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶14

Order

¶15

11/08/2023

¶16

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur in Civil Suit No.146/2021 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendants has been rejected.

¶17

The ground as raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC by the defendants was that the suit is barred by law in terms of Section 58 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (for short hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act of 2001’). It has been submitted that the plaintiffs are members of the Society

[2023:RJ-JD:25503]

[CR-35/2023]

(2 of 3)

and therefore, in terms of Section 58 of the Act of 2001, any dispute arising between the members pertaining to the business of the cooperative society has to be referred to the named arbitrator that is the Registrar of the Cooperative Society.

¶22

The learned trial Court concluded that the dispute in question is not between the members of the Society and therefore, the same would not be governed by Section 58 of the Act of 2001. 4. In the opinion of this Court, the issue whether the plaintiffs are members of the defendant-Society or not is not even required to be gone into as firstly , even if it is admitted that the dispute pertains to the members of the Society, Section 58 of the Act of 2001 provides for reference of the said dispute to arbitration. Admittedly, no application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been preferred at the first instance as required in terms of law. The present is an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC which also has not been preferred at the first instance and therefore, the plaint could not have been rejected on the ground as raised by the petitioner. Secondly , a perusal of the averments made in the plaint makes it clear that the present is not a dispute pertaining to the constitution, management or the business of the cooperative society. Therefore also, the finding as reached by the Court below is totally in consonance with law. Thirdly , the plaintiffs have specifically denied the factum of them being the members of the society. The fact as averred by the defendants, therefore, has to be proved by them in accordance with law. By all means, the plaint cannot be rejected on the said ground.

[2023:RJ-JD:25503]

[CR-35/2023]

(3 of 3)

In view of the above observations, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned and the present revision petition is therefore, dismissed .

¶27

Stay petition stands disposed of.

¶28

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶29

13-T.Singh/-

Gulshan Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd. v. Raghunandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulshan Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd. v. Raghunandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kesari Singh Vs Takhta and Ors.

Mahesh Chandra and Ors. Vs Prabha Shankar and Ors.

Prithvi Raj and Anr. Vs Nemi Chand and Ors.

State of Rajasthan Vs Tejpal

Smt. Krisyna Devi Vs Gautam Soni

Uda So Kana Vs Kana and Ors.