Mohinder Singh vs Jargari Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Jargari

A.S. Bains, J.(Oral)

The petitioner obtained certain fertilizer loans amounting to Rs. 6994.20 from the Jargari Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Jargari (respondent No. 1) hereinafter referred to as the amount. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Samrala, (respondent No. 2) issued a notice to the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 108/ and Rs. 1079.12 as principal, Rs. 650 and Rs. 108.19 as interest and Rs. 28.64 and Rs. 294.33 as costs and also appointed Shri Ved Pal as arbitrator for decision of the dispute. Copy of the notice is attached with the petition as Annexure P.1. The arbitrator vide his order dated 28th March, 1972 (copy attached with the petition as Annexure P.2) gave the award and fixed the liability of the petitioner as under :

(i) Rs. 6994.20 as principal amount.

(ii) Rs. 850.56 as interest @ 10.5% upto 20.8.1971

(iii) Rs. 1986.17 as expenses.

He also allowed interest @ Rs. 10.5 per cent per annum on the principal amount till the payment of whole amount. In all, the petitioner was ordered to pay Rs. 9830.93.

Dissatisfied by the award given by the arbitrator, the petitioner filed appeal before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, which was dismissed on 30th May, 1973. He then went up in revision before the Deputy Secretary to Government Punjab, Cooperation Department, who vide his order dated 13th November, 1973 remanded the case and the appeal was heard by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. The Deputy Registrar vide his order dated 25th November, 1974 (copy Annexure P3), dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner again went up in revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Cooperation Department on 9th April, 1975. Copy of the Deputy Secretary''s order is attached with the petition as Annexure P.4. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award.

It was canvassed by Mr. Achhra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make the award beyond the reference, that the interest beyond 6 per cent per annum could not be awarded and the costs could also not be awarded to the Society. He also contended that the petitioner did not sign the pronotes (Tamasks) and that no opportunity was given to him.

There is no merit in these contentions. The arbitrator was validly appointed and in the return filed by the respondents it is mentioned that the whole matter was gone into by the arbitrator and then the award was made. Perusal of the appellate authority''s order shows that the petitioners had been given ample opportunity to prove his case. The appellate authority went into the records and came to the conclusion that the award was justified. The petitioner had executed 12 Tamasks, which were also thumbmarked by him. He wanted to get his thumb impressions compared. He was given opportunity for that purpose, but he did not deposit the necessary fee for the comparison of the thumbimpression as is clear from the appellate order. He did not even appear as a witness to deny that he did not thumbmark any Tamask. The loans were advanced to him between 1968 and 1971, but he has not paid even a single penny till today. In this situation, I am of the view that no injustice is done to the petitioner what to say of manifest injustice.

So far as interest is concerned, it cannot be awarded more than 6 per cent per annum as held by their Lordships of the Full Bench in this Court in The State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh and others, 1979 P.L.J. 334. Accordingly, the rate of interest is reduced from 10.5% to 6% per annum and society is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award to the date of realisation of the amount awarded.

So far as the costs are concerned in view of the Division Bench authority of this Court reported as Nirmal Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1976 P.L.J. 41 : 1984 R.R.R. 346, the costs awarded by the arbitrator being excessive cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the costs are set aside. However, it will be open to the Assistant Registrar to award costs to the Society on the basis of actual expenses.

The petitioner''s conduct is such that he refused to pay even a single penny out of the loans which he had obtained from the Society and his tactics throughout had been to delay the matter on one pretext or the other. 13/14 years have passed since he was advanced loans by the Society, but he has not paid a single penny. On the writ side, unless manifest injustice is show to have been done, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked.

Except for the modifications in the rate of interest and the costs, this petitions fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/.