MALINI V PAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is listed in orders list, with the consent of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondents, the same is taken up for hearing and is disposed of as follows:

(2.) PETITIONER, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 28th September, 2004, on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 171 of 2002 and the order dated 28th November, 2001 in dispute No. 436 of 2001-02 on the file of the second respondent vide annexures-A and F respectively, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to dispose of the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to engage the services of an Advocate.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that, petitioner is the widow of late Sri K. Vasudev Pai, who died in the year 1992. It is her strong case that, she is neither a member of third respondent-Abhyudaya Credit Co-operative Society Limited ('society' for short) nor has she mortgaged any property in favour of third respondent. But, inspite of the same, petitioner and fifth respondent are shown as guarantors to loan availed by fourth respondent. The fourth respondent is the principal borrower who availed the loan from the third respondent-Society. When the fourth respondent has committed default in payment of necessary instalments, the third respondent was constrained to raise a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('act' for short), before the Competent authority and the Competent Authority in turn has referred the matter to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator in turn on evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, has passed the award dated 28th November, 2001 vide Annexure-F. Being aggrieved by the award passed by arbitrator, petitioner has filed the appeal on the file of the Karnataka appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 171 of 2002. The appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed, confirming the award passed by arbitrator. Being aggrieved by both the impugned orders vide annexures-A and F, referred above, and consequently for other directions, stated above, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.