Judgment:
1. Sri. K.A. Ariga, learned AGA is directed to take notice for R1.
2. The first respondent initiated action against second respondent under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, referred to as ‘Act’). The second respondent after the initiation of proceedings under Section 64 of the Act, surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 69 of the Act. Therefore second respondent has raised a dispute before the first respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,39,26,119/-. Suffice it to note that the respondent 2 filed an application to implead the present petitioners on the ground that they had also availed loan from the Bank. Notice on the said application was issued and the said notice was subject-matter of writ petition before this Court in W.P.Nos.14456 and 14457 of 1999 connected with W.P.Nos.16596 and 16597 of 1999. This Court declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same on 5-10-1999. The said order of the learned Single Judge was carried in appeal in W.A.Nos.7717 to 7720 of 1999, Division Bench of this Court declined to entertain the writ appeal and dismissed with an observation that the proposed respondents in the dispute will have their defence by producing the documents and evidences. The said order has attained finality. The application filed by the second respondent to implead the petitioner was allowed by the first respondent. The same was assailed by the petitioners by way of revision petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The said revision having been entertained, an interim order of stay of further proceedings was granted. The Tribunal by its impugned order dated 24-10-2011 dismissed the said petition. Hence this writ petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Sriramappa, learned Counsel for Caveator respondent and Mr. K.A. Ariga, AGA for the State.
4. Indeed, it was pointed out to Mr. Subramanya Joise, the learned Senior Counsel that the matter is practically concluded in the earlier proceedings inasmuch as this Court has observed that it is open for the impleading applicants to raise all such contentions available to them including production of evidence both oral and documentary. He fairly submitted that indeed the said fact was not within his knowledge.
5. It is no doubt true that Mr. Subramanya Joise, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the said application itself could not have been granted more so having regard to the fact that it was barred by statute.
6. I am of the view that having regard to the observation and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, thee is no option, but to reject the petition. Having said so, I am of the view that the question of interfering with the order passed by the Arbitrator as well as the Tribunal does not arise. Petition stands rejected.
7. Another request made by Mr. Jois, learned Senior Counsel is for speedy disposal and conclusion of the proceedings under Section 70 of the Act, for which the learned Counsel for the respondent 2 has no serious objection.
8. The Arbitrator shall conclude the proceedings at the earliest but however not later than 8 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sri K.A. Ariga, learned AGA is permitted to file memo for appearance in four weeks.