Timmappa vs The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sirsi and Another

H.G. Ramesh, J.—This Writ Petition by the judgment debtor is directed against the certificate dtd. 28.12.2011 (Annexure-H) issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sirsi, u/s 101(1)(a) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (''the Act'' for short) to execute the award dtd. 03.02.2011 bearing No. 133/2005-06 (Annexure-E). Pursuant to the certificate, respondent No. 2-Society has filed an execution proceeding in E.P. No. 2/2012 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur, to execute the aforesaid award at Annexure-E. It is relevant to state that the above referred award dtd. 03.02.2011 (Annexure-E) was passed against the petitioner u/s 71 of the Act for a sum of Rs. 15,23,793/- along with interest at the rate of 13% + 2% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 8,60,699/- from the date of the award till the date of recovery.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the certificate is contrary to Rule 33-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (''the Rules'' for short). Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-Society submitted that a ''certificate'' is issued u/s 101(1)(a) of the Act and Rule 33-B of the Rules has no role to play in the matter of issuance of a ''certificate''.

I find force in the submission made by the Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. In my opinion a certificate is issued u/s 101(1)(a) of the Act to execute an award passed u/s 71 of the Act and as stated in the said provision such a certificate is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court. Rule 33-B of the Rules has no role to play in the issuance of a certificate. This becomes obvious by a plain reading of the aforesaid two provisions namely Section 101(1)(a) of the Act and Rule 33-B of the Rules. It is stated that the award referred to above is challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 506/2012. It is not the case of petitioner, that the award is stayed by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, I find no legal infirmity in the issuance of the certificate dtd. 28.12.2011 (Annexure-H) or the pursuant execution proceeding in E.R. No. 2/2012 to warrant interference by this Court.