AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per S.N. MURTHY, M.:-This appeal is filed against the order and judgment dated 29-6-1977 bearing ABN. 1409/76-77 passed by the Honorary Arbitrator of Co-operative Societies, Raichur on the file of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sindhanoor.
The learned counsel for the appellant has in his arguments before us on 13-7-82 and also in his appeal Memo stated that the impugned award was passed by the learned Honorary Arbitrator of Co-operative Societies without notice to the Appellant and that the dispute itself was barred by time at the time it was filed.
On verification of records we find that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant was not served with notice is partly true. The notice of dispute was served to the appellant under certificate of posting which is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Karnataka Co-perative Societies Act and Rules.
The other contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the dispute itself was barred by time at the time it was filed is totally true. On perusal of the records we find that the due date for repayment of loan was 30-9-1967 and the dispute was filed on 25-5-1977 after a lapse of nearly 10 years.
The reasons mentioned above constitute sufficient grounds for us to set aside the impugned award. But the so called Judgment by the Honarary Arbitrator of Co-operative Societies should not be left unnoticed. His ignorance of the provisions of the Act, his absurd interpretation of the provisions concerning the dispute and the irresponsible way in which he has written the judgment have forced us to conclude that such Honorary Arbitrators create endless confusion and avoidable anxiety to the parties concerned. Such Arbitrators are not only wasting their time but they are wasting the time of this Tribunal also.
To illustrate only two instances of the Honorary Arbitrator''s irritating ignorance of law, this dispute was filed in the lower Court against the appellants for recovery of loans by them. The learned Arbitrator of Co-operative Societies records in his proceedings that the appellant borrowed a loan and that he in his written statement maintained that the dispute was barred by timeBut, the learned Arbitrator observes, the amended Act gives power to condone the delay "under rectification by the higher authorities". ("Higher authorities" are his words). So, he thought, he could treat the dispute as if it was within time limitation. Also, he observes, the mistake was not committed by the present Plaintiff Society as the loan was advanced to the appellants by the society before the amalgamation with the Plaintiff Society and that the loan was advanced to the appellant by the office bearers of that amalgamated Society carelessly. For the fault committed by the office bearers of the amalgamated society, the learned Arbitrator reasons, the present Plaintiff Society should not suffer and that it has every right to recover the loan.
In addition to the reasons mentioned above, the learned Arbitrator concludes, the office bearers of the amalgamated Society were careless in advancing the loans to the appellant and that it was their duty to recover the loan from the appellant and that they had not filed Arbitration proceedings against the appellant and that they ignored the provisions of law. After making these observations, the Honorary Arbitrator comes to the conclusion that the former office bearers of the amalgamated Society from which the appellants borrowed loan were also responsible For the loan claimed by the Society from the appellants.
The learned Arbitrator has displayed his total ignorance of law. He does not even know the provisions that one has to file an application for condonation of delay; that the application of condonation of delay should be filed before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies; that he cannot simply record that the amended section makes this provision and that he can simply mention it in his judgment and assume it is within the time limitation. It is simply highly irresponsible.
We cannot, therefore, but conclude that it is simply dangerous and unwise to entrust disputes to such ignorant Arbitrators. We hope and trust that the authorities referring disputes will wake up such Arbitrators from their dreams of errors. (Let a copy of this Judgment be marked to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka Bangalore).
In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned award. No costs.