RANGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 7 -3 -2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 1567/2010 allowing the writ petition and remanding the matter to the arbitrator to pass a fresh award the respondent No. 6 before the learned Single Judge has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE case made out is that one Venkataramanachari was the owner of the schedule lands. He had borrowed a loan of Rs. 3,000/ - from the respondent Primary Co -operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank by mortgaging the schedule land. On 25 -10 -1976 he sold the land in favour of the writ petitioner and his brother namely, respondent No. 4. Since the original owner who is also the purchaser failed to discharge the loan, a dispute was raised to recover the amounts. On 28 -2 -1978 the award was passed. Recovery proceedings was initiated. In the recovery proceedings the land was brought to sale. Respondent No. 6 in the writ petition was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 9,850/ -. The sale was confirmed in his favour on 25 -6 -1987. The petitioner questioned the award and the execution proceedings before the Karnataka Appellate tribunal which dismissed his appeal on the ground of delay. Hence, he filed writ petition No. 28240/2003 before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka wherein by the order dated 29 -10 -2004, the writ petition was allowed. The order of the tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the said order, writ appeal No. 5412/2004 was filed. The Division Bench modified the order and directed the tribunal to firstly consider the question of delay and thereafter to decide the appeal on merits. Thereafter the tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal thereby confirming the award and the execution proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the writ petitioner was not granted an adequate opportunity to participate before the arbitrator. That there was no notice on him with regard to the proceedings initiated for recovery and the consequent sale of the properties. In view of the ignorance of the writ petitioner with regard to the proceedings in question, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders passed by the appellate tribunal as well as the award passed by the Arbitrator. The matter was remanded to the arbitrator to pass a fresh award in accordance with law after serving notice to all the concerned parties. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 6 has filed this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge held that while passing the order condoning the delay the tribunal held that no notice was served on the petitioner in the auction sale proceedings. Hence, the delay was condoned. However, in the final order passed by the tribunal it took a contradictory view that the notice was served in the award proceedings. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the order passed by the tribunal is contradictory and hence, the writ petition was allowed. The appellant contends that by the order dated 13 -4 -2009 passed in writ petition No. 14932/2008 it was held that it was open for him to urge all the grounds as and when it becomes necessary. Hence, he pleads that the same requires to be considered.