AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Justice B.S.Patil
Tough this matter is listed for preliminary hearing, having regard to the nature of dispute raised and with the consent of learned counsel for both parties, the case is heard for final disposal. Petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Its membership is open for coffee growers in Kodagu District. During 1994-95, petitioner-Society has suffered an order from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies who is also a departmental arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings bearing No.DRI/537/2002-03 whereunder the arbitrator has held that the 2nd respondent herein who had filed the dispute was entitled for a sum of Rs.36,264/- along with interest at 6% till the date of realisation of the said amount from the petitioner-Society towards the amount invested in fixed deposit in connection with the sale of coffee seeds.
The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order is passed without assigning any reasons and that the petitioner was not at all given a fair and reasonable opportunity to lead its evidence by producing necessary documents. It is his further contention that even the Appellate Authority, the Tribunal has simply brushed aside: this contention of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was given ample opportunity by the arbitrator but they failed to avail the same.
It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that liability of the petitioner was only to the tune of Rs. 16,500/- and if an opportunity had been given the petitioner would have produced necessary resolution passed by the general body of the Society and established its plea that it was liable only to pay a sum of Rs. 16,500/- and not beyond the same much less the amount of Rs.36,264/- as awarded.
Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supports the orders under challenge. He contends that despite ample opportunity provided to the petitioner, they have not produced any documents in support of their defence, therefore, this Court need not interfere in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after careful perusal of the impugned orders and the pleadings, it is apparent from the order passed by the arbitrator that there are absolutely no reasons assigned for the conclusion arrived at holding that the petitioner-Society was liable to pay a sum of Rs.36,264/- to the 2nd respondent. As can be seen from the order passed by the arbitrator, the case was posted after service of summons on 30.06.2003 for enquiry. As the petitioner sought time, the case was adjourned to 17.07.2003. On 17.07.2003 as can be found from the impugned order, advocates of both parties were present. There is nothing to show when the statements were recorded. Despite the same the arbitrator proceeds to hold that already statements and reply statements had been recorded and therefore he was of the view that a sum of Rs.36,264/- was due and payable by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. Except this, there is no other reason assigned for the conclusion. If at all the statements of the parties had been recorded, it was the duty of the arbitrator to discuss the evidence so adduced, consider the same and come to a conclusion. Such an exercise is not made by him.
It is the case of the petitioner that no evidence was recorded and they had no opportunity to produce any document. Learned counsel for the petitioner intends to rely on certain resolutions. This Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction cannot embark upon re-examination of the matter by considering the documentary evidence. Suffice to observe that the arbitrator who was enjoined with a duty to provide a fair ad reasonable opportunity to the parties and to pass reasoned orders has not discharged his duty. The Appellate Authority has not bestowed its attention to this vital aspect but has no doubt recorded a finding that the Society did not choose to adduce evidence despite sufficient opportunity given to it. As can be seen from the impugned order, the only opportunity given to the petitioner was on 17.07.2003 on which date the arbitrator has disposed of the dispute. Perhaps the arbitrator has referred to the claim statement made and the objection filed as statements given by the parties. He ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce its evidence by producing documents. As, such an opportunity is not provided the matter requires consideration. However, as the petitioner-Society has contended that its liability was only limited to a sum of Rs. 16,500/- and not Rs.36,264/-, I am of the view that the Society has to discharge the admitted dues along with interest within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to this condition the petitioner is entitled for a fresh opportunity. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) The impugned orders are set aside.
b) The matter is remitted for fresh consideration to the Departmental Arbitrator, who shall provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and produce documents and thereafter pass a reasoned order by considering the arguments advanced.
This order is subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies/Arbitrator, Kodagu District, Madikeri, the admitted dues in a sum of Rs. 16,500/- along with interest at the rate of 14% per annum till 17.07.2003 and thereafter at the rate of 6% till the date of deposit to be made. It is made clear that if this admitted dues along with interest is not paid within four weeks as directed above, the petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of this order and the 2nd respondent will be entitled to recover the amount as per the impugned orders in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent will be entitled to withdraw the amount to be deposited by the petitioner-Society.