AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Bedi, J.—Respondent No. 4, Pal Singh, obtained a loan of Rs. 35,000/ from the petitioner Cooperative Society in three instalments on different dates and executed pronotes detailed below towards securing of the loan :
Pronote No. & Date
Amount of Loan
(i) 22 dated 24.11.1978
Rs. 10,500.00
(ii) 36 dated 3.1.1979
Rs. 14,000.00
(iii) 50 dated 3.3.1979
Rs. 10,500.00
Total
Rs. 35,000.00
The terms and conditions of the pronotes were as follows :
........... I undertake to:
(1) return the amount of Rs. 10,500/ along with interest @ 11% per annum as per the instalments ;
(2) If I do not utilise the amount of loan for the purpose for which it has been drawn the Committee can demand the entire amount in lumpsum ;
(3) On receipt of two months notice from the Society, I will pay back the total amount of loan;
(4) If the Society feels that it would suffer loss because of my financial condition, then the Society can demand the entire amount of remaining amount of loan without any notice for which I will have no objection of pay the same..........."
It appears that respondent No. 4 committed default in the repayment of the loan and the petitionerSociety vide resolution dated 21st August 1978 resolved that the recovery of the entire balance amount from respondent No. 4 be made along with interest and costs. As the matter was a case of an admitted liability, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies to whom the dispute was referred for arbitration took recourse to Section 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act'') and made an award in favour of the petitioner for the payment of an amount of Rs. 30899/ as principal amount along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum which represented the entire balance amount due from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the award of the Arbitrator, the respondents filed an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ropar, under Section 68(2) (a) read with Section 68(2)(h) of the Act and the said officer accepted the appeal of respondent No. 4 on the ground that the petitioner Society could have raised a dispute only with regard to the instalments in default but not for the recovery of the entire amount in lumpsum. A copy of this order is attached as Annexure P2 to the petition. The petitionerSociety thereafter filed a revision petition before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, who dismissed the same vide order dated 15th January, 1990, a copy whereof has been attached as Annexure P4 to the petition.
The solitary ground raised on behalf of the petitionerSociety is that as per clause (4) of the promote which has already been reproduced above, the petitioner Society could demand the entire amount of loan in case it so desired. It has been asserted on this basis that the appellate and revisional authorities in deciding against the petitioner vide orders, Annexures P2 and P4 have transgressed and ignored the specific provision of the pronote executed by respondent No. 4.
Written statements have been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. The factual aspects have not been disputed by respondent No. 1 and 2 and the orders impugned have been sought to be justified. Respondent No. 4, however, has filed elaborate written statement in which he has taken the stand that he was required to pay a total sum of Rs. 43,254/ against the loan amount of Rs. 35,000/, but during the course of a decade from 1979 to 1989 he had in fact repaid to total amount of Rs. 46,945/ was therefore entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3691/ from the petitionerSociety. In para 4 of the reply more details as to the various instalments that have been paid towards clearing of the loan have been set out.
After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to succeed though not in its entirety. It is clear that as per clause (4) of the Pronote, the petitioner was entitled to recover the entire amount of loan in lumpsum. It appears to me from the pleadings that there is some dispute between the parties as to the actual amount that is now due from respondent No. 4. As a matter of fact, an elaborate statement of account had been filed by the Secretary of the petitionerSociety, but respondent No. 4 obviously is not still satisfied. I think it is proper that the entire matter should be gone into again by the Arbitrator and the amounts be redetermined by taking into account the pleas raised by respondent No. 4. 1, therefore, quash the orders Annexures P1, P2 and P4 and direct the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ropar, to redetermine the amount due from respondent No. 4 after giving him a proper hearing and associating him with the enquiry. Respondent No. 4 will thereafter be in duty bound to pay the entire amount due from him in lumpsum. The parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 17.3.1992.
With the observations made above, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.