Sri. K. Chandrakantha Shenoy and Others vs The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Another

V. Gopala Gowda, J.—Being aggrieved of the order dated 20.2.2004 passed by the KAT in Appeal No. 473 of 2003 vide Annexure-A in affirming the award dated 28.12.2001 passed by the first Respondent vide Annexure-E in Dispute No. 156 of 2001-02, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the said orders and sought for quashing of the same, urging various legal contentions.

The ground of attack of the impugned order is, the KAT has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly without noticing the relevant fact namely notice is not served by the first Respondent upon the Petitioner before passing the Award and the award is in printed form which is illegal. Therefore, it is urged that both these grounds have not been properly considered and answered by the KAT. Further, it is contended that loan amount paid towards the principal amount by the Petitioner has not been adjusted towards the loan amount and therefore, it is contended the award passed by first Respondent is vitiated in law. Lastly it is contended by the learned Counsel for Petitioners that, the loan amount is given to Petitioners by accepting one immovable property as collateral security. The learned Counsel for second Respondent sought to justify both the order and the award.

I have perused the impugned order passed by the KAT. KAT has referred to original record of first Respondent and also perused the evidence adduced before it and recorded a finding of fact on the contentious issue. No doubt the award passed by the first Respondent is in printed form that by itself cannot be said to be illegal. Further the KAT has recorded a finding of fact in its order holding that the loan transaction has been specifically admitted and default committed by the Petitioners is also revealed from the record. Therefore, notice issued u/s 37-of the KCS Rules of 1960 and thereafter passed the award by first Respondent and therefore it has rightly held that it is sufficient for it not to interfere with the award passed by the first Respondent. Further, the KAT has considered the material evidence on record and further recorded a finding of fact on the basis of evidence on record in justification of the Award passed by first Respondent and further it has observed that no material either oral or documentary is produced before the first Respondent to disbelieve the claim of the second Respondent and further it has recorded a finding of fact that oral and documentary evidence produced by the Bank is cogent and substantial as it has established its claim but on the other hand the Petitioners have not produced any material whatsoever to disprove the claim of the Bank.

The said finding of fact recorded by the first Respondent and KAT cannot be interfered with in these proceedings by this Court for the reason that the Petitioners have borrowed the loan somewhere in the year 1997 and except contending that they have repaid the loan amount to the Bank, no document is produced either before the KAT or before this Court to show that they have repaid part of the loan amount. No document is produced subsequent to passing of the award of conditional interim order passed by the KAT to show that they have paid Awarded amount. In the appeal, it is contended that the loan amount has been repaid to the second Respondent which is one of the important circumstance that this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary and supervisory discretion.

In the absence of any material evidence being produced by the Petitioners keeping in view the fact that loan amount is not disputed, the rate of interest at 15% plus 3% is rightly awarded by the first Respondent by considering the documentary evidence on record. Since the Petitioners have not repaid the loan amount to the second Respondent, the first Respondent has rightly awarded interest amount on the principal amount which is affirmed by the KAT. Therefore, the said portion of the award cannot be found fault with by this Court in the absence of evidence adduced by the Petitioners in this regard. Further, there is no need to quash the award by this Court and send it back to the first Respondent to give opportunity to the Petitioner to disprove the claim of second Respondent for the reason that the Petitioners have not made out a case in that regard, if the case is remanded there will be another round of litigation by filing an appeal and thereafter approaching this Court. In that process, loan amount borrowed by them will not be repaid thereby the purpose for which the Bank is established will be defeated. Therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the Petitioners to file an application before the second Respondent seeking time to repay the loan amount by installments which may be considered by it in accordance with law.