Shri Shankar Arjun Gaonkar and Others vs The Co-Operative Tribunal of Goa and Others

F.I. Rebello, J.—The petitioner by this petition impugns the order dated 15th September, 1992 passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Goa, Daman & Diu, Panaji, and order dated 31st March, 1989, passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, North Zone, Mapusa, Goa, whereby the aforesaid authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner to refer for arbitration the disputes raised by the petitioner. The petitioner had moved three applications against the respondents No. 4. It was the case of the petitioner that his vehicle was attached in execution proceedings passed by the Registrar''s nominee on 23rd July, 1983, amongst others against the petitioner himself, for recovery of amount due to the respondent No. 4. The petitioner claimed that the detention of the vehicle, now in custody of the said Bank was illegal and hence he is entitled for compensation from the Bank towards the loss suffered by him due to the detention of the vehicle. It was further contended by the petitioner that the said grievance amounts to a dispute u/s 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as applied to the State of Goa. The second respondent held that the grievances raised by the petitioner are not substantial and, as such, the subject-matter cannot be treated as dispute within the meaning of Section 91(2) of the Act and accordingly rejected the claims made vide applications dated 13th September, 1988, 22nd November, 1988 and 1st February, 1989.

The petitioner aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision before the first respondent which was numbered as Co-operative Revision Application No. 1/89. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 15th September, 1992, was pleased to dismiss the revision preferred by the petitioner herein. The Tribunal held that there was an award against the applicant, execution of which was sought before the Executing Authority. It was in the course of the proceedings for execution that the order of attachment was passed and custody of the vehicle was handed over to the respondent Bank and as such, the Bank became Receiver of the vehicle. The first respondent also held that if the petitioner has no grievance about the order of attachment then there was a remedy provided for it and the petitioner could not claim anything by way of a separate suit or dispute. The Tribunal held that if the loss was occasioned due to improper custody of the vehicle by the respondent Bank, as the respondent Bank was holding custody of the vehicle as Receiver, no suit or dispute would lie against it without the leave of the executing Court: that no such leave was procured and that being the position, the same did not tantamount to dispute and consequently the claims put forward by the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar were not maintainable as dispute. For the aforesaid reason, the revised application was dismissed.

Shri Kamat, arguing for the petitioner, contended that the vehicle was forcibly attached and oh account of forcible attachment he has suffered damages and the claim for damages constitutes a dispute which has to be referred for adjudication. Shri Kamat relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. P.R. Mankad and Others, Shri Kamat draws my attention to para 21 of the said judgment and to the following sentences from the said paragraphs.

The related provisions and the scheme of the Acts unerringly indicate that the expression ''any dispute'', has been used in a narrower sense limited to contested claims of a civil nature, which could have been decided by civil or revenue courts, but for the provisions with regard to compulsory arbitration by the Registrar or his nominee, found in Section 54 of the Act of 1925 or Section 96 of the Act of 1961.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner. The petition is totally devoid of merit. The three dispute raised by the petitioner are in respect of orders passed in proceedings for execution. The respondent No. 4 has an award in his favour amongst others, against the petitioner. In execution of the said award, the respondent No. 4 moved the executing authority which passed the orders of detention. The executing authority thereafter gave custody of the vehicle to the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 has rightly held by the Tribunal, was in possession of the truck as Receiver on behalf of the executing authority. The respondent No. 4 has not done any act of its own which could give rise for a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. In order to give rise to a dispute, there must be some act on the part of the respondent which has given cause for injury to the petitioner resulting in a civil liability. In the instant case, all that respondent No. 4 has done is to move the executing authority for recovery of the amount due including by attachment of sale of property belonging to the petitioner. This action cannot be said to constitute injury to the petitioner to give rise to a civil claim. The petitioner, as such, could have no grievance against the respondent No. 4. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the executing authority he could have moved under the rules to get the vehicle released. If the executing authority had not complied with the rules, the petitioner could have moved the executing authority or the authority higher to the executing authority to challenge the said order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and/or any provisions of law. It is the petitioner who has chosen not to seek the remedy and even if such remedy was pursued, the petitioner could not have a claim or grievance against the respondent No. 4. The judgment of the Apex Court has no relevance insofar as the subject-matter of this petition is concerned.

The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Rule discharged. Costs by the petitioner.