Writ petition challenging the Assistant Registrar's order modifying an ex-parte award and enhancing interest in a cooperative banking dispute. Court held Assistant Registrar lacked jurisdiction under Rule 31(4)(b) and power to modify the award.
Impugned order dated 22.04.2016 in dispute ARD/UBF/1479/2014-15 set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.29807/2016 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K VEERESHA, ADV. FOR SRI H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.)
AND:
2
K.H.ROAD BENGALURU-560027.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP. FOR R1 & R2 SRI NAVEEN PATEL, ADV. FOR R3-ABSENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 DATED 22.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND QUASH THE SAME, ALLOW THIS PETIITON.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
The petitioners are before this Court under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 22.04.2016 in
ARD/UBF/1479/2014-15 (Annexure-A) by which the award dated 20.07.2010 passed in Dispute
3
No.2781/2009-10 is modified and rate of interest is enhanced from 17% p.a. to 21% p.a.
Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd., (for short ‘the Bank) raised a dispute in No.JRD/UBF/2781/20092010 before the 2nd respondent – Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,91,310/- from the petitioners. As per Annexure-B award dated 20.07.2010 the 2nd respondent – Assistant Registrar allowed the dispute of the 3rd respondent –
Bank and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2,91,310/- and costs as on 07.07.2010 with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. and 2% penal interest. After more than 5 years from the date of the award, the 2nd respondent – Bank filed Miscellaneous Petition No.1479/2014-15 under Rule 31(4) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, praying to recall the
4
award dated 20.07.2010 passed in No.
JRD/UBF/2781/2009-10 and to restore the dispute to its original file. The 2nd respondent – Assistant Registrar instead of considering the prayer made in the Miscellaneous petition, modified the award enhancing the interest from 15% p.a. simple interest plus 2% penal interest to 19% p.a. simple interest plus 2% penal interest. The said order dated 22.04.2016 passed in No.ARD/UBF/1479/2014-2015 is questioned in this writ petition.
5
his jurisdiction while considering the Miscellaneous Petition filed under Rule 31(4)(b) of the Rules in modifying the award dated 20.07.2011. Rule 31 (4)(b) of the Rules provides for restoration of the petition, if the award passed is ex-parte. Ex-parte decision or award on sufficient cause may be set aside under the above said provision, but the order of the 2nd respondent – Assistant Registrar in modifying the award is wholly illegal and requires to be set aside. Further the learned counsel would point out that there is no provision under the Act or the Rules to correct the award and as such the 2nd respondent – Assistant Registrar committed an error in modifying the award dated 20.07.2010.
6
which was mistakenly mentioned as 15% p.a. instead of 19% p.a. Thus he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7
the Dispute No.2781/2009 – 2010 to its file. Rule 31(4)
(b) of the Rules reads as follows:-
“31(4)(b) : The decision or award given shall
be in writing and pronounced in open Court.
If a party duly summoned fails to attend, the dispute may be decided ex parte. Ex parte decisions or awards may, on sufficient cause for non-attendance being shown, be set aside by the Registrar, and the dispute ordered to be re-taken on the file and disposed of :
Provided that no application for setting aside an ex parte decision or award shall lie, unless made within thirty days from the date of such decision or award, then the party for whose non-attendance, such decision or award was made, had been duly served in the dispute or in other cases within thirty
8
days from the date of knowledge of such decision or award having been made.”
The above Rule provides for setting aside ex-parte decisions on sufficient cause for non-attendance of a duly summoned party. Such application for setting aside an ex-parte decision or award shall be made within thirty days from the date of such decision or award or within thirty days from the date of knowledge of such decision or award. Such application or petition could be filed by a party, duly summoned, fails to attend. But in the instant case, petition under Rule 31(4)(b) of the Rules was filed to set aside the award by the party, who had raised the dispute and in whose favour the award was passed. If the party who raised the dispute, feels aggrieved by such award, it is open for him to file appeal against such award or decision. The above said provision provides for filing petition by a party duly summoned, fails to attend, against whom ex-parte award is passed. In the instant case, the
9
petition under Rule 31(4)(b) of the Rules is not by a party, who failed to attend the proceedings, but petition is by the party, who raised the dispute. Petition under Rule 31(4)(b) of the Rules by such party, who raised the dispute would not be maintainable. The 2nd respondent committed an error in entertaining the petition filed by the 3rd respondent – Bank under Rule 31(4)(b) of the Rules.
10
the Act. There is no provision to correct or amend the award passed under the Act or Rules. Once award is passed it is not open for the 2nd respondent – Assistant Registrar to modify or correct or to amend the award. No such power to modify or correct or to amend the award is conferred on the 2nd respondent under the Act and the Rules.
allowed . Impugned order at Annexure-A dated 22.04.2016 passed in dispute No.ARD/UBF/1479/ 2014 -15 is set aside.
Sd/JUDGE
NG* CT:bms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Assistant Registrar had jurisdiction under Rule 31(4)(b) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules to entertain a petition filed by the complainant to recall an ex-parte award.
Whether the Assistant Registrar had the power to modify an ex-parte award under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act or Rules.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
M V VENKATESH
T.K.DEVARAJU
JAYARATHNAMMA
JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.132
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.132
MANDYA CITY CO-OP. BANK LTD
S.G. PANDIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
