B Sachidananda Rai S/O: M Sankappa Rai. Vs. the Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[mr. justice ram mohan reddy, j.] this petition filed under article 226 & 227 of the constitution of india praying- to set side the impugned order the karnataka appellate tribunal. dt.23.9.10. in appeal no.418/10, vide ann-a. and misc.w. 1226/11 is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to extend the time to deposit the amount 1. petitioner having suffered an award for recovery of rs.2,04,000/ with interest at the instance of the 2nd respondent-aryapu vyvasaya seva sahakari bank ltd., filed appeal no.418/2010 before the karnataka co operative appellate tribunal, for short 'kat invoking section 105 of karnataka cooperative societies act, 1959, whence by order dt. 23.9.2010 the execution of the award was stayed subject to depositing 40% of the amount within eight weeks failing which the order stands vacated. aggrieved by that order the petitioner is before court invoking article 227 of the constitution of india.2. this court on 10.12.2010 granted an interim order as prayed for subject to depositing 25% of the award amount with the 2nd respondent society within six weeks there from.3. there is non-compliance with the interim order of this court as well as that of the kat.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under sub-clause (2) of section 105, an appeal against an award for payment of money, shall be considered by the kat under subsection (1) if it is accompanied by satisfactory proof for having deposited with the concerned society 25% of the amount due in terms of the award. if that is so, then the petitioner is required to comply with the statutory provision. admittedly the petitioner on filing the appeal did not place before the kat satisfactory proof of deposit of 25% of the amount in the award and therefore, there was non-compliance of statute.5. according to the learned counsel for the respondent-society rs.3.09.888/ is the amount due and payable as on 31.10.2010 and 25% of the which is rs.77.472/- while the petitioner is said to have deposited rs.40.000/- on 22.3 201 1.6. thus what is apparent is that there is non- compliance of the section 105(2) for consideration of the appeal by the kat. there is also non-compliance with the interim order of this court. in that view of the matter, petitioner is not entitled to any equities. petition being devoid of merit is rejected. however. kat is directed to consider the appeal in accordance with sub section 2 of section 105 of the act and proceed to order. misc.w. is dismissed as unnecessary.

Judgment:
1. Petitioner having suffered an award for recovery of Rs.2,04,000/ with interest at the instance of the 2nd respondent-Aryapu Vyvasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., filed appeal No.418/2010 before the Karnataka Co operative Appellate Tribunal, for short 'KAT invoking Section 105 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, whence by order dt. 23.9.2010 the execution of the award was stayed subject to depositing 40% of the amount within eight weeks failing which the order stands vacated. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner is before court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. This Court on 10.12.2010 granted an interim order as prayed for subject to depositing 25% of the award amount with the 2nd respondent society within six weeks there from.

3. There is non-compliance with the interim order of this Court as well as that of the KAT.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under sub-clause (2) of Section 105, an appeal against an award for payment of money, shall be considered by the KAT under subsection (1) if it is accompanied by satisfactory proof for having deposited with the concerned society 25% of the amount due in terms of the award. If that is so, then the petitioner is required to comply with the statutory provision. Admittedly the petitioner on filing the appeal did not place before the KAT satisfactory proof of deposit of 25% of the amount in the award and therefore, there was non-compliance of statute.

5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-Society Rs.3.09.888/ is the amount due and payable as on 31.10.2010 and 25% of the which is Rs.77.472/- while the petitioner is said to have deposited Rs.40.000/- on 22.3 201 1.

6. Thus what is apparent is that there is non- compliance of the Section 105(2) for consideration of the appeal by the KAT. There is also non-compliance with the interim order of this court. In that view of the matter, petitioner is not entitled to any equities. Petition being devoid of merit is rejected. However. KAT is directed to consider the appeal in accordance with sub section 2 of Section 105 of the Act and proceed to order. Misc.w. is dismissed as unnecessary.