* E'-"'"
(B 1" "SRI.2:AI--IEER AHMED, AGA EOR R~ 1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT ISANGAEORE
DATED THIS THE 20m DAY OF JANUARy;..2D;1_':Q_'O:".: "
BEFORE _ _ " V ' '
THE HONBLE
WRIT PETITION NO. 17964 fgfisj "
BETWEEN: A V V _
SR1 K.M.SHIVA - "
SON OF LATE K.S.MAL.L1'KAI2,JLINA"RRASANNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,' _
RESIDENTS OF._BIRUR,-- _ '
KADUR I :
CH1CKMANGiAL'(:;R_.DI,STRI_CT. _ '
:PETITIONEB
(BY SRI.K.SRINIyASA; IADV. EOR ASSTS.)
AND:
1. TIIE'JO1I~:£T'RiE<§IST*RAR
OECo--ORERATIVE.'CSOCIE"rIES,
ISANCALOREQSSO O18.
' -- ARCANIJT PROCESSING AND SALES
* CO;;0PERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,
SACAR;
SHIIVEOGA DISTRICT,
"BY? ITS SECRETARY.
" : RESPONDENTS
” ‘Sm.R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2)
:2′
3,
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE R1 DTD 24.01.01
IN DISPUTE NO.JRB/DIS/426/1990431. VIDE TuANuNEX~A
AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE K2-\RNATAKA
APPELLATTE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.24¢§,l_7’200*}..,__
20.02.09 VIDE ANNEX–F TO THE W.P.
THIS PETITION COMING .ON-.?fO1f§
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING; ”
0ePPP
The petitioner.’ hast——«’Vfiied’-»..pAthis”wri.ti§ petition
challenging the orfiieifdatégiit 302001 in Dispute
No.GRB.B.}_D_ISt{£i?,6/ the Assistant
Registrar; Shimoga Sub-
at AnneXure–A and the
Ordervvtitiatetd’ passed by the Karnataka
Appeliate ;I”1*ihaunha1 p’roauced at Annexure-F.
‘v2Q”T11e”iearned counsel for the petitioner submits
had obtained loan of Rs.8 lakhs from the
2nd respondent. Since the same has not been repaid
“0 flfiif’i«ifl the time stipulated, the Second respondent raised
dispute before the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative
it
1.
Societies u/s 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies
Act. The same came to be allowed by S
directing the petitioner to pay Rs.8,93,
interest at 18%. Being aggrieved;.’petitiori.erVV ‘ S.
preferred appeal before
Tribunal in Appeal v_vhi.ch; to be»
rejected by the order dated.”p_:iZO;2..2009’.”‘i. Hence the
present Writ petiton. ‘M
3. contends
that by the Karnataka
Appeilate -setting aside the order passed
by the of Cooperative Societies.
after «remand, the first respondent has not
‘Vaffordved~i ;’op’portunity to the petitioner and his
‘s.L.ibrnissio’1i..that the amount paid by him on different
occasions running to several lakhs has not been taken
A 5 by the second respondent. He has produced some
réeceipts Annexures~B to D to show that he has paid
ii
i
substantial amount. He has also produced bill for
having paid Rs.9 lakhs dated 30.11.1994 andxdaniother
bili for Rs} Iakh dated 4.3.1995. But.m’theéég’e-..é
payments have not been co_ns.idered’V
Hence the petitioner has prayed
passed by the first respondefnt_pand” a1__so.by.:th.e'”appe11ate’ 9′
Tribunal.
4. The learnedCouxfiseiior submits that
as per the?_: the Karnataka
Appeliatei 1995 notices have
beenhissuedvd»Vtci:’:-theL4pe.ti’t–ioner by the A R CS but the
same claimed. Therefore, the ARCS
‘th€=..__sa-me in the order sheet and held that
‘ service'”isf.sufficient. Notwithstanding the same, one
“more not’i.ce..5’was issued on 29.6.1999. The same was
served on’ the petitioner and in response. he engaged an
A adifocate. The learned advocate made a request for
1 adjournment to file objections. Accordingly on several
.41.;
2
dates, adjournments were made abut no statement of
objections has been filed. On subsequent da;tes,_:’db_oth
the petitioner and his counsel remained
Hence the case Was posted for .evidence’.'””T’
ARCS by the order dated 24f.;.2dpoA1d’
dispute. Even before th._e”‘-appeliatea “jsameddv
contention of not an opportlniity was
advanced. The came to the
conclusion .vt}.1:at_ the given fullest
opportunity ‘
for the respondent submits
that ” has paid amount as per
Anr_texvu1″es~B’ he could have produced the same
‘ But no such effort has been made
before V Even in the appeal before the
Karnatdaeka Appellate Tribunal such a material was not
A “it produced. Even assuming that he has paid the alleged
” amounts, the same can be sorted out in the execution.
Hence the learned counsel for the second respondent
submits to dismiss the writ petition.
6. On the basis of the contention
petition and also the submission made ..behaIf-it,ofv:.th-he
respondent,” I have gone throughdithe
the writ petition. As per it that the
case of the petitioneiidrizasidcoaijisideried’on remand to the
first responden-tvxwho”iiitiirnthe matter to the
ARCS for of the Karnataka
been referred at para
No.3i7that’ the petitioner had returned
with shara _ Thereafter on several
occiasioiis, the ‘matter was adjourned in order to provide
‘ the petitioner but except engaging a
not participated in the proceedings by
filing objections and also appearing in the case. Hence
A the”_.A R C S recorded the evidence, perused the
documents and the file maintained by the respondent
at
3.
bank and thereafter an order has been passed in favour
of the Bank for recovery of the amount.
7. In the appeal before the KAT, hé«s i
taken a ground of non “of it
natural justice. The appeilate ‘4[A’ri.b’una1 consi;de1’ed’a.
in detail the contention of tfijvihijiletianswering
Point No.2 framed respect of
the eontentionof paid Rs. 10
lakhs, by the appellate
tribunal any receipt or
document lakhs has been remitted
towardstttkipe If the petitioner has remitted
theignroprrey as Aiaiieged, he could have appeared before the
‘ evidence to that effect”.
‘Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that
has.’ paid amount has been disbelieved by the
“”..VA.’ppeHate Tribunal. Under these circumstances, the
petitioner has not made out any good ground to
interfere with the impugned orders.
9. Notwithstanding the observati’ensv,ip’_e’V.if [tide V’
petitioner has paid the amouritiiiofi’Rs.”l_O-I
Annexures—-B 8: C, it is always ovpentfor hing
same at the time of eXeei”1t.ion, which’etiiieztexecuting
Court shall considerin-acoofdariee lawn
With this observation, petition’-is disposed of.
The learned’ Go_ve’rIif:nei’it:VI51eader is permitted to
file memo it
Sd/2*
Iudsfi