1 WP567'3.08
IN THE HXGH COURT OF' KAR.NA"!'AKA AT
DATED mxs 'ma: 1713 DAY 09 HOVEMBER. A'
BEFORE:
"mm Horrsw MR. JUSTICE mi. snnaxpieg A
Wrii Petition No. 5523 91' 2.008 mg-$15.5} ' "
asrmzx: " "
Sam'. PREMA
mo. PADMAKARA SHE'T'I'Y
t§GED ABGUT 44 YEARS
BANGADE Raw, ASHOK NAGAR A .
MANGALC3RE-- 575 005 V _ 5 _ , PETITIQNER
[By Sri. Uiޤ:s3F1' ;:\,j}VA;.m
W;
D
THE ASST. REc:;§'rRAR _
CO--{)P. sc::«:1E'r=:j12:s;:_ ~ ¢ _ .
MANeAuom::."$UB4i.2M$;{QN- _
MANGALGRE»-«{3,:K,1 was ac};
at
THE:._MAN GAE-1* RE 'CQ--OP .
BU1L'i:):N--G SOCi1'~2'§EY 1;frD'.~,__ " _
MAN<3ALoRE'--' ;5f?;3j<301'
REP. EYVETSA MAN.%GER'/SECRETARY
IO
3 syR;I'PaLmMA.KA;2ASHEdW
<'{3--Q\x'1NDA S}~iE'F";"Y
' «VAGE: 3=.{A:3UR, BANGADI ROM},
' P§;':3H<2=.1:'£'J1§{§A'i?_
VM.AN:;;p;L.Qi2E.g..5?5 905 RESPONDENTS
' my sm£.}"2as,§zaa M Kumbargerimath, HCGP for R1;
" . F'1mdikaiIsWara Bhat, Adv, for R2]
THIS VPETITEON IS FILED UNDER' ARTICLES 225 AND 227 OF'
'Trig: ,CONS'I"I'TU'I'ION op INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
H~:IP!?.G¥'€ED {BRIDE}? FASSED BY THE COURT BELOW EN C{f)~
"=.__0?ER.§=rr1vE APPEAL 140.1262:/2004 m:15,2.200-3 AT' AN1\EEX.Ef)
J _'?HE_F'.f:3BY CONFERMING THE ORDER PASSEI) BY R: IN DISPUTE
' '£60.16/04-05 D'I'.5.5.2o04 AND ET'C.,
TPHS PETITION COMii'~IG ON FCJR PRELEIWNARY HEARING 'B' T
V' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE F'OLLOWING:---
Q WP56'?'3.08
ORDER
This writ petition by 3. Member of the second
respondent -~ The Mangalore Cwoperative
Limited who had suffered an ex parte azva-re’! V’
payment of the borrowed amount froin”the”-.soeieityi«towerdns.
eenstruction of residential heuse and whose aftteiergat toget
the relief before the I{aI’11atak£azt..:}\~ppelh1a’teV_ an V’
appeal under section of HCo¥-operative
Societies Act, 1959 failed ‘es tx–i]§}i4x:j1_az1’_’.-dismissed the
appeal at the ti’1re§tio}d:i.bei12?g; of that the delay of
about fdijr the appeal ie not one that
can be eorildoned.’-. ”
2. ‘3;’his_ eo’L1rt”had.” iseued emergent notice to the
and first I’€Sp€)I”1d€I1t — Assistant
CC;–.:o’perative Societies who had passed the
R€eisi&[sa’eicftV
_awarti–. for whom the Government Advocate appeared
H H ” trad ,b_.eer1*-ciiirecteé to take notice.
court had also grarited an interim order Staying
-1:i3.ei§ enforcement of the Award subject to the petitioner
3 WPS673. O8
depositing a sum of Rs;25,00D/- Within eight weeks. The
matter has eome in ‘B’ Group thereafter.
4. I have heard Sri. Umesh A, ieamed
petitiorzer and Sri. Pundikai
counsel for second respondentzeeincl
Kumbargerimaflu, learned Geikeffi1H1ent”‘Pleafl;er llggpgjlearing
for first respondent. eerved has
remained uI’:represen{ecl§_V_ ‘l
5. Having ‘fro. *t.l;e=i Zvery'”lfififii}ted…examinafion which
is neeeseiteted petition, the matter is taken up
for disposalexgfim flieélcoiisaient of the learned counsel.
tf3b_UBaiVV”‘&lsmissed the appeal only on the
Egreijjjlef The appellate tribunal also observed
_ that”‘««the,.__’w§i.{:” Apetitioner though had been served with a
Vlfiotioee “erléer mile 31[7][a] of the Karnataka Couoeerative
Ruies, 1960 [for short ‘the rules? has
VT ” z’;ei}erthe1ess delayed the presentation of appeal and
U therefore the appeal cieservee to be dismissed.
4 WP’56’73.{}8
7. The petitioner–appeI1ant’s case was that the eéward
itself was passed ex parte. Petitioner was not
deveiopments before the arbitrator and _
about the award only subsequentftoii
under rule 38[2][d] of the ruies r¢3m4’z~iio.e e
property. ‘V V V’ V
8. It is the Version of thiiswniotice was
received oniy oI1 7 is filed on
16.11.2004 as as-. A t:h:e”x was able to get
eertifieé eo;i1y:”‘;5a11Ei¢;:_; =de~1ey.’ hé;eI~~~ occurred L1I1d6}f’ such
CiI’C’L2EIlStS{1C€S. ‘
9. Lfr:i’ortu1ia£e§y;”‘the’ tribtmal gave more importance to
iVr,ti;e«sérzéiéeofixzgece sfiaer rule 31[7]{a] of the ruies which
is”‘a_ ‘i’I.otic:e:””is_s’uied” after passing of the award and in the
V form of sari intimation notice and when the arbitrator files
H K the eward before the Regstrar.
iiwihile there is a dispute as to whether this notice
itiritier rule 3}[7]{a] of the ruies had ever been served on
it the p€fifiOI1€I’ notwitilstamiirlg the observation of the
5 WP5673.08
triiaunal that the record did indicate such notice had’-been
served, what is more important is that the V.
have ‘bestowed. its attention to the manner of ‘
for the period subsequent to wliicii s1lei1i.v1iotiee_ee:*v?ed”‘«
on the petitioner — appellant, in ttieeetise, the”.lAeoi1c’l11et”of V
the appellant before the shad
become aware of passinadt oiiclerutloes not
indicate consideratioa of V all.
1 3.. It is V _t'(ital_”atetfiehotisideration of the
exp1ana1tio11’vaufixfei;eei’: :fi’3?%é’ before the tribunal
and disputed ever; by learned
counsel ~v._i’or,_: respondent —- society, but
” ‘neveIv:tl*ieie.ss .._e;*o1llt1 that commensurate candifion
on the petitioner if the matter has to be
some amount can be paid, this writ
jv”v’««LIV}x’3tlf,iOI1 to be allowed.
u examination by the tribunal should not be from
h of dismissing the appeal but as to whether the
Lappeilartt if has not presented the appeal Within the period
of iimitation has made out sufiicient cause for the delay.
/’
/
/
§”
//