{"id":270099,"date":"2009-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-12T20:48:56","modified_gmt":"2018-07-12T15:18:56","slug":"rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: P. R. Borkar<\/div>\n
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n                    FIRST APPEAL NO.47 OF 1995\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n     Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda,         ]..Appellant\n     Age.       42        years,       Occ.       Business,\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n     and                                        Contractor,\n     R\/o.           Lohar           Galli,          Nanded,\n     Proprietor           of           the          concern\n     \"Ramkrupa\"                              Constructions,\n     Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n                               VERSUS\n\n\n     1. Shri Shankarrao Chavan              ]..Respondents\n        P.V.C. Pipe Utpadak Sanstha\n\n\n\n\n                               \n        Maryadit,\n        A Co-operative Society at Hingoli,\n                    \n        Dist. Parbhani, through its Chairman\n        Shri Inderchand s\/o. Premraj Soni,\n        Age.55 years, Occ. Business,\n        R\/o. Hingoli, Dist. Parbhani.\n                   \n     2. The Manager\n        Shri R. Shakeel,\n        Age. 38 years, Occ. Service at\n        P.V.C. Pipe Factory,\n        R\/o. Hingoli, Dist. Parbhani.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n     Shri   B.A.  Darak,   Advocate   for  the   appellant.\n     Shri P.S. Agarwal, Advocate for the respondents.\n\n\n                                  CORAM : P.R. BORKAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                            RESERVED ON : 04.03.2009
\n                          PRONOUNCED ON : 16.03.2009<\/p>\n
     J U D G M E N T :-\n<\/p>\n
     .       This   is   an appeal preferred by the            original<\/p>\n
     plaintiff whose suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.104<\/p>\n
     of 1991 for recovery of Rs.4,12,000\/- was dismissed by<\/p>\n
     2nd   Jt.   Civil   Judge, Senior   Division,         Nanded        on<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                               (    2     )<\/p>\n
     14.07.1994            on     the       ground      that       the      suit      is     not<\/p>\n
     maintainable               for want of notice under Section 164                           of<\/p>\n
     the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960.\n<\/p>\n
     2.          Brief          facts giving rise to this appeal may be<\/p>\n
     stated as below:-<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     .           The        respondents are Chairman and Manager of a\n\n     factory       run          by Shri Shankarrao Chavan                   P.V.C.          Pipe\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n     Utpadak       Sanstha            Maryadit,         a    co-operative             society\n\n     registered\n\n     Societies         Act<\/a>,\n                            \n                            under\n\n                                     1960.\n                                            the\n\n                                                  The\n                                                        Maharashtra           Co-operative\n\n                                                            plaintiff\/appellant              has\n                           \n<\/pre>\n
     approached the Court with a case that he had agreed to<\/p>\n
     carry       out       construction of excavation,                      brick       lying,<\/p>\n
     plastering,            concreting,           carpentry, joinder of                   steel<\/p>\n
     and     iron work, drainage work, water supply,                                 sanitary<\/p>\n
     fitting           etc.            of    factory          building         and         other<\/p>\n
     constructions              at     the site of the defendant                     factory.\n<\/p>\n
     An    advance of Rs.5,00,000\/- was paid by the defendant<\/p>\n
     – Co-operative Society to the plaintiff for above said<\/p>\n
     construction               work and said amount was to be                       adjusted<\/p>\n
     towards           bill       of     work        done.       According           to      the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff, defendant did not co-operate in performance<\/p>\n
     of    the     work          and the work could              not      be     completed.<\/p>\n
\n\n     Defendant         -        Co-operative Society illegally                       withdrew\n\n\n\n\n                                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span>\n                                           (        3     )\n\n\n\n\n     the work from the plaintiff.                        Due to the withdrawal of\n\n     work,       the        plaintiff    appellant                 suffered          loss      and\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n     therefore          the suit is filed for recovery of amount of\n\n     Rs.     4,12,000\/-.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n<\/pre>\n
     3.          The defendant\/respondent Society filed written<\/p>\n
     statement          at Exh.32 and amongst other contentions, it<\/p>\n
     objected          to     the tenability of the suit stating                              that<\/p>\n
     since        the        defendant        is         a   Co-operative               Society<\/p>\n
     registered             under       the            Maharashtra              Co-operative<\/p>\n
     Societies          Act,
\n                              ig 1960, the suit without<\/p>\n
     Section 164<\/a> of the said Act is barred.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                              notice        under\n                            \n     4.          The        learned     Civil Judge                framed        preliminary\n\n     issue       whether        the suit is maintainable for                           want      of\n      \n\n\n     notice           under      Section           164       of        the       Maharashtra\n   \n\n\n\n     Co-operative            Societies Act, 1960, and the answer                               was\n\n     in    the        negative.       Since it is held that the suit                             is\n\n     not     maintainable, it is dismissed.                            It is this           order\n\n\n\n\n\n     which       is     challenged       in this appeal The                      only       point\n\n<\/pre>\n
     which arises for our consideration is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “Whether the suit is not maintainable without
\n                 Notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra
\n                 Co-operative Societies Act, 1960?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.          Heard         Adv.Shri B.A.             Darak for the               appellant<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (   4       )<\/p>\n
     and    Adv.Shri     P.S.       Agarwal          for    the      respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     Section     164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
     Act,     1960, hereinafter referred to as “the Act” is as<\/p>\n
     follows:-\n<\/p>\n
               “164.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                164.   Notice necessary in suits : No suit
\n               shall be instituted against a society, or any<\/p>\n
               of its officers, in      respect of any act
\n               touching the business of the society, until
\n               the expiration of two months next after notice
\n               in writing has been delivered to the Registrar
\n               or left at his office, stating the cause of
\n               action, the name, description and place of<\/p>\n
               residence of the plaintiff and the relief
\n               which he claims, and the plaintiff shall<\/p>\n
               contain a statement that such notice has been
\n               so delivered or left.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.        The    words     “touching        the        business         of     the<\/p>\n
     society” also appear in Section 91<\/a> of the Act, wherein<\/p>\n
     phrase    used     is    “in   dispute          touching        business         of<\/p>\n
     society”.       Section 91<\/a> (1) is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
               “91.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                91.   Disputes (1) Notwithstanding anything
\n               contained in any other law for the time being
\n               in   force,   any     dispute   touching   the<\/p>\n
               constitution, elections of the committee or
\n               its officers other than the elections of
\n               committees   of   the    specified   societies
\n               including its officers, conduct of general
\n               meetings, management or business of a society
\n               shall be referred by any of the parties to the
\n               dispute, or by a federal society to which the<\/p>\n
               society is affiliated or by a credit of the
\n               society, to a Co-operative Court if both the
\n               parties thereto are one or other of the
\n               following:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (a) ...............           \"\n\n\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span>\n                                           (    5     )\n\n\n\n\n     7.            Both     sides       cited several        authorities.              The\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n     earliest        case       cited     is   Farkhundali            Nannhay         V\/s.\n\n<\/pre>\n
     V.B.Potdar and another, AIR 1962 BOMBAY 162.                              The Full<\/p>\n
     Bench     of this Court was considering Section 54<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
     Bombay        Co-operative         Societies Act, 1925              and      phrase<\/p>\n
     “touching the business of society” was considered.                                  It<\/p>\n
     was     observed that nature of business, which a society<\/p>\n
     does,     is     to be ascertained from the objects                        of     the<\/p>\n
     society.             But    whatever      the       society        does      or     is<\/p>\n
             its     objects<\/p>\n
     necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying<\/p>\n
     out                           can    be    said to         be    part      of     its<\/p>\n
     business.            The word “touching” is also very wide                        and<\/p>\n
     would include any matter which relates to, concerns or<\/p>\n
     affects        the business of the society.                  In that case it<\/p>\n
     is    held      that       payment     of wages of any             sum     due      to<\/p>\n
     employees        under law is therefore part of the business<\/p>\n
     of the society.             The copy of object or bye-laws of the<\/p>\n
     defendant        –     Society is not produced in this case                         to<\/p>\n
     know what is scope of business of the society.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.         In         the      present              case        business            of<\/p>\n
     defendant\/society,             as its name discloses, can be said<\/p>\n
     to be production and sale of P.V.C.                        pipes.       In para 7<\/p>\n
     of    the Trial Court’s judgment while dealing with this<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (     6     )<\/p>\n
     aspect,      it      is     observed          that         the      contract           of<\/p>\n
     defendant\/society         with        the     appellant\/plaintiff                    was<\/p>\n
     regarding        construction         of shed for the                 factory        and<\/p>\n
     other     construction          work.       Same cannot be said to                     be<\/p>\n
     business     of the society as it is not business of                                 the<\/p>\n
     society      to     do    construction             of      sheds        and       other<\/p>\n
     structures.         In para 9 of the Trial Court’s                           judgment<\/p>\n
     it is observed that undisputedly the construction work<\/p>\n
     in     question was entrusted by the defendant society to<\/p>\n
     the     plaintiff for construction and erection of                                shed,<\/p>\n
     for<\/p>\n
     business
\n             installing<\/p>\n
                  of
\n                         ig   machinery          and starting<\/p>\n
                         the society and therefore he
\n                                                                           factory<\/p>\n
                                                                              held
\n                                                                                          and<\/p>\n
                                                                                         that<\/p>\n
     notice     under     Section          164<\/a> of the Act              was      required.\n<\/p>\n
     However,         agreement       at     Exh.4\/1            relates         to       only<\/p>\n
     construction of factory building and other structures.\n<\/p>\n
     It     nowhere     speaks       of installation of                  machinery          or<\/p>\n
     starting     of     factory       or        business.             The         contract<\/p>\n
     strictly relates to work of building and construction.\n<\/p>\n
     9.         Second        case         cited       is       Deccan          Merchants<\/p>\n
     Co-operative       Bank Ltd.          V\/s.    M\/s.           Dalichand          Jugraj<\/p>\n
     Jain and others, AIR 1969S.C.1320.                         Said case is under<\/p>\n
     Section    91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative                              Societies<\/p>\n
     Act.      In that case it is observed in para 17, 18 & 22<\/p>\n
     as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                       (   7   )<\/p>\n
      “17.    ……………………………….
\n      It is clear that the word “business” in this<\/p>\n
      context does not mean affairs of a society
\n      because election of office-bearers, conduct of
\n      general meetings and management of a society<\/p>\n
      would be treated as affairs of a society. In
\n      this sub-section the word “business” has been
\n      used in a narrower sense and it means the
\n      actual trading or commercial or other similar
\n      business activity of the society which the<\/p>\n
      society is authorised to enter into under the
\n      Act and the Rules and its bye-laws.\n<\/p>\n
      18.      The    question arises    whether   the
\n      dispute touching the assets of a society would
\n      be a dispute touching the business of a<\/p>\n
      society.     This would depend on the nature of
\n      the society and the        rules and    bye-laws<\/p>\n
      governing it. Ordinarily, if a society owns
\n      buildings and lets out parts of buildings
\n      which it does not require for its own purpose
\n      it cannot be said that letting out of those<\/p>\n
      parts is a part of the business of the
\n      society.     But it may be that it is the
\n      business of a society to construct and buy
\n      houses and let them out to its members.       In
\n      that case letting out property may be part of
\n      its business. In this case, the society is a<\/p>\n
      co-operative      bank    and    ordinarily    a
\n      co-operative bank cannot be said to be engaged<\/p>\n
      in business when it lets out properties owned
\n      by it. ………………………………\n<\/p>\n
      22.      While we agree that the nature of
\n      business    which a society    does   can   be<\/p>\n
      ascertained from the objects of the society,
\n      it   is    difficult to   subscribe   to   the
\n      proposition that whatever the society does or
\n      it necessarily required to do for the purpose
\n      of carrying out its objects can be said to be
\n      part of its business. We however, agree that
\n      the word “touching” is very wide and would<\/p>\n
      include any matter which      relates to    or
\n      concerns the business of a society but we are
\n      doubtful whether the word “affects” should
\n      also be used in defining the scope of the word
\n      “touching”.”\n<\/p>\n
                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                             (     8    )\n\n\n\n\n     10.        Third           case    cited is Satpalsingh                Arora        V\/s.\n\n     Santdas        Prabhudas Malkani, 1973 Mh.L.J.292.\n                                            Mh.L.J.292                            In     that\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n     case     it is observed that by-laws of a society can                                  be\n\n     referred to ascertain object of the society.                                 In paras\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n<\/pre>\n
     12 and 13 it is mentioned that the word “business” has<\/p>\n
     been     used in a narrower sense and it means the actual<\/p>\n
     trading        or        commercial     or        other      similar         business<\/p>\n
     activity            of     the    society         which      the      society          is<\/p>\n
     authorised          to enter into under the Act and the                           Rules<\/p>\n
     and     its bye-laws.             There is nothing on record to show<\/p>\n
     that     the<\/p>\n
     construction<\/p>\n
                         present respondent society has business<\/p>\n
                              activity      or        construction          of     factory
\n                                                                                            of<\/p>\n
     building and other structures.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     11.        The       next case cited is of our High Court.                             In\n      \n\n\n     Kalawati        Ramchand Malani V\/s.                  Shankar Rao Patil              and\n   \n\n\n\n     Others,     1974 Mh.L.J.908,\n<\/pre>\n
                      Mh.L.J.908 a housing society was formed<\/p>\n
     with      the       object        of   constructing             buildings            and<\/p>\n
     allotting       them        to    members.            The     member         allowing<\/p>\n
     licensee       to        occupy    allotted building.                  Dispute         in<\/p>\n
     their member and licensee after termination of license<\/p>\n
     is held to be one not touching business of the society<\/p>\n
     and    it is held that the dispute is covered by Section<\/p>\n
     91<\/a>     though it may ultimately “affect” business of                                 the<\/p>\n
     Society     if license is given in contravention of rules<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (    9     )<\/p>\n
     or bye laws of Society.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n     12.           In    the       case of Mohan Meakin Limited,                      Bombay\n\n     V\/s.      The       Pravara          Sahakari      Sakhar        Karkhana           Ltd.,\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     Pravaranagar,            Ahmednagar, 1987 Mh.L.J.503,\n                                               Mh.L.J.503 there                            was\n\n<\/pre>\n
     question of violation of Trademark and it was observed<\/p>\n
     that     one of the objects of the Society in addition to<\/p>\n
     manufacturer             of     sugar       was        the     manufacture              of<\/p>\n
     complementary products and in that behalf to erect the<\/p>\n
     necessary           machinery.               The         alcoholic            products<\/p>\n
     manufactured<\/p>\n
     co-operative
\n                           ig out     of     molasses<\/p>\n
                          society was a complementary product
\n                                                               by     the        defendant<\/p>\n
                                                                                           and<\/p>\n
     the     said business fairly and squarely fell within the<\/p>\n
     ambit     of the Bye-laws of the society.                          Therefore,           it<\/p>\n
     is     held that when suit is filed under Section 105<\/a>                                   of<\/p>\n
     the     Trade and Merchandise Marks Act<\/a> for violation                                   of<\/p>\n
     Trademark          “Black Knight”, notice under Section 164<\/a> of<\/p>\n
     the     Act     is mandatory and in absence of such                            notice,<\/p>\n
     suit     is not maintainable.                It is the case of                 society<\/p>\n
     which     runs       business of manufacture of liquor and                              to<\/p>\n
     sell     it.        Dispute was touching the business                          of     the<\/p>\n
     society.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     13.        In      the        case    of     Belganda          Sahakari          Sakhar\n\n     Karkhana Ltd., Bhoras V\/s.                   Keshav Rajaram Patil, 1994\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span>\n                                           (    10    )\n\n\n\n\n     Mh.L.J.1756,\n     Mh.L.J.1756           the    sugar factory invited                 tenders        for\n\n     construction          of godown.         On certain disputes               arising\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n     between        the sugar factory and the                contractor-member,\n\n     the     factory       filed dispute in the Co-operative                        Court\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     under     Section 91<\/a> of the Act for recovery of an amount\n\n     of      Rs.3,64,711\/-.            The       contractor-member                    filed\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     objection        contending that the Co-operative Court                           had\n\n     no     jurisdiction         to    entertain the           dispute,          as     the\n\n     contract        had not been taken by him in his capacity as\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     a     member     of     the society.           The    Co-operative               Court\n\n     rejected\n\n     Court     upheld\n                           \n<\/pre>\n
                     the objection but in Revision, the Appellate<\/p>\n
                            the       objection on the ground                that       the<\/p>\n
     dispute as regards the contract fell under common law.\n<\/p>\n
     The     Single Bench of this Court held that such dispute<\/p>\n
     does     not fall within jurisdiction of the Co-operative<\/p>\n
     Court     and        Civil Court has jurisdiction.                    The        Court<\/p>\n
     referred        to    the case of D.M.Co-op.Bank (supra).                           In<\/p>\n
     para 14 following observations are made:-\n<\/p>\n
               “14.   The argument advanced by Mr.    Dhorde,
\n               appears attractive but, it is to be borne in
\n               mind that in the D.M.Co-operative Bank’s case
\n               (supra),
\n               (supra)    the Supreme Court     had made    a
\n               distinction between works done to serve the
\n               object of the society and works done in
\n               pursuance of the business of the Society. One<\/p>\n
               can   understand that there     could be    no
\n               manufacture of sugar if there was no factory
\n               building and no place for machinery. It can
\n               also be appreciated that the business of
\n               manufacturing sugar and selling it at an
\n               advantageous price could not be done unless<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (   11    )<\/p>\n
                there was a godown but, then, it was not the
\n                business of the society to erect such things.
\n                The business of the society is, in fact, to
\n                manufacture   the sugar, to     sell   it   in<\/p>\n
                advantageous manner. The ancillary provisions
\n                made for facilitating the production of sugar
\n                and selling it advantageously, may be an<\/p>\n
                affair relating to the management of the
\n                society, but it is neither the business of the
\n                society and it may not, probably, amount to
\n                even the management of the society nor it is
\n                business for the purposes of the expression<\/p>\n
                used in Section 91(1)<\/a> of the Act.      In any
\n                event, such a view has been taken by the
\n                Supreme Court in the D.M.Co-operative Bank’s
\n                case (supra).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.        In        the case of Suprabhat Co-operative Housing<\/p>\n
     Society<\/p>\n
     2002(3)
\n                    Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
                    Mh.L.J.837,
\n                    Mh.L.J.837
\n                               and anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                       this
\n                                             V\/s.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                 Court\n                                                       Span Builders and anr.,\n\n                                                              has      occasion           to\n                          \n     consider        Section      164<\/a> of the Act.             In that         case      the\n\n     object     of       the     Co-operative Housing Society                    was      to\n\n     construct        flats      on plot in question taken on                      lease,\n      \n\n\n     for      allotment          to    members        of   society        for         their\n   \n\n\n\n     authorised           use.         The       original        plaintiffs             who\n\n     instituted          Special Civil Suit for the recovery of                           an\n\n     amount         of     Rs.11,97,117\/-             together       with       interest\n\n\n\n\n\n     adverted        to the two agreements dated 12th                       September,\n\n<\/pre>\n
     1997 and 30th December, 1998 by which the contract for<\/p>\n
     the     construction         of    the flats was            awarded         to     the<\/p>\n
     respondents.           The case of the respondent was that the<\/p>\n
     bills     which were raised by them upon the society                               for<\/p>\n
     the     work        of construction were kept pending                      and     the<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (     12    )<\/p>\n
     payment         of     the     bills       was       unduly       delayed.          The<\/p>\n
     respondents           stated that in the circumstances, it                          had<\/p>\n
     become impossible for them to complete the contractual<\/p>\n
     work     and that they had in fact decided to abandon the<\/p>\n
     contracts.            Considering        object of          the      Co-operative<\/p>\n
     Society, which was to construct flat, it was held that<\/p>\n
     the     dispute was touching the business of the society.\n<\/p>\n
     In     this     case, as initially stated, business                          of     the<\/p>\n
     respondent          Society        is not to construct               factory        and<\/p>\n
     other        structures, contract of which was given to                             the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff<\/p>\n
                      appellant.           It is observed in para 8<\/p>\n
     the expression “touching the business of the society”,
\n                                                                                        that<\/p>\n
     which is employed in section 164<\/a> has also been used in<\/p>\n
     Section        91<\/a>     of     the    Act.    Section 91<\/a>,            it     would       be<\/p>\n
     material to note falls in Chapter IX of the Act, which<\/p>\n
     is     entitled “Statement of Disputes”.                       After referring<\/p>\n
     to     the     case of D.M.          Co-operative Bank               (supra),         in<\/p>\n
     para     9 it is observed that the basic principle                                which<\/p>\n
     has     been formulated by the Supreme Court is whether a<\/p>\n
     particular dispute touches the business of the society<\/p>\n
     would        depend     upon the nature of the society and                          the<\/p>\n
     rules and bye-laws governing it.                      So, ultimately it is<\/p>\n
     nature        of the society as evidenced by its object                             and<\/p>\n
     bye-laws which have to be taken into consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            (    13   )\n\n\n\n\n     15.          In        the case of Solapur Taluka Khadi Gramodyog\n\n     Utpadak       Sahakari Society V\/s.             Dattatraya               Shankarrao\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n     Kondewar          and     others,     2005 (1) Mh.L.J.24,\n                                                    Mh.L.J.24                  the     suit\n\n     filed       against the Society on the ground of bona                             fide\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     requirement             and default by its landlord.                 The society\n\n     was     carrying          out    business of trading                in    the     shop\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n     premises          in     question.        It was held that               no     notice\n\n<\/pre>\n
     under Section 164<\/a> of the Co-operative Societies Act is<\/p>\n
     required,          as     the suit cannot be said to be                    suit     in<\/p>\n
     respect       of        an act touching business of the                    society.\n<\/p>\n
     The case of D.M.\n<\/p>\n
     were
\n                              ig   Co-op.      Bank (Supra) and other cases<\/p>\n
              referred to and in para 7 it is observed that it<\/p>\n
     cannot       be doubted that everything that a society does<\/p>\n
     for    the        purpose of achieving its objects                       cannot     be<\/p>\n
     regarded          as its business.          Taking a premises on                  rent<\/p>\n
     by     a society for the purpose of attaining its objects<\/p>\n
     and carrying its business cannot per se be regarded as<\/p>\n
     a business of the society.                  On similar lines it can be<\/p>\n
     said     that       though object and business of the                         society<\/p>\n
     was    to     manufacture P.V.C.             pipes and sell               them,     it<\/p>\n
     cannot       be     said      that    construction        of        factory        for<\/p>\n
     manufacturing            of     P.V.C.      pipes        or     making         allied<\/p>\n
     construction            is    the    business       of        the        respondent<\/p>\n
     society.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                          (   14    )\n\n\n\n\n     16.        So     relying law laid down in cases of                     Solapur\n\n     Taluka     Khadi        Gramodyog and Belganda Sahakari                    Sakhar\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n     Karkhana        (Supra) and considering observations made by\n\n     the     Supreme Court in various authorities as                        referred\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n<\/pre>\n
     to above, in my opinion, the Trial Court has committed<\/p>\n
     error in holding that the suit is bad for non-issuance<\/p>\n
     of     notice     under     Section      164      of    the      Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Co-operative          Societies Act.         The suit is maintainable<\/p>\n
     in absence of such notice and therefore this appeal is<\/p>\n
     allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     17.        In     the\n                            igresult     the appeal is           allowed.           The\n                          \n     judgment        and     decree     passed by the        learned         II     Jt.\n\n     Civil     Judge,        Senior Division, Nanded, is set                   aside.\n\n     Said     Court        is directed to restore the suit to                    file,\n      \n\n\n     frame     all     issues     and     proceed to        decide        the      suit\n   \n\n\n\n     according to law.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                        [P.R. BORKAR, J.]\n\n     snk\/2009\/MAR09\/fa47.95\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:25:15 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009 Bench: P. R. Borkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.47 OF 1995 Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda, ]..Appellant Age. 42 years, Occ. Business, and Contractor, R\/o. Lohar Galli, Nanded, Proprietor of the concern “Ramkrupa” Constructions, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-270099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-12T15:18:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-12T15:18:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2326,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-12T15:18:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-12T15:18:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-12T15:18:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009"},"wordCount":2326,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009","name":"Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-12T15:18:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-ramkishan-sarda-vs-shri-shankarrao-chavan-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda vs Shri Shankarrao Chavan on 16 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270099","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=270099"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270099\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}