K S RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 30th July, 2002 in Appeal No. 522 of 2000 on the file of the first respondent-Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and also the award dated 27th May, 2000 in dispute No. D. R. D. 820/88-89 on the file of the third respondent-Assist ant Registrar of Co-operative Societies vide Annexures-A and F respectively, has presented the instant petition. Further, he has sought for a direction, directing the respondent-Bank to release the goods pledged by the petitioner including the missing goods and direct the fourth respondent-Bank to account for the remittance of rs. 10,720/- made by the petitioner under Exhibits P. 21 to P. 30 and also disallow the interest and penal interest calculated by Bank on the principal amount up-to-date.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that, the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs. 35,000/- on 29th September, 1975 from the fourth respondent-Industrial Co-operative Bank, Hassan (hereinafter called 'bank') by pledging his automobile goods. In view of non-payment of necessary instalments within the stipulated time fixed by the Bank authority, at the time of releasing the loan to the petitioner, the Bank was constrained to raise a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "act") before the competent Authority. The Competent Authority, in turn, has referred the matter to the Arbitrator, who conducted the enquiry and after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, has passed the award dated 15th March, 1982 in Dispute No. RCS Disp. 102/78-79. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Arbitrator, the petitioner herein has filed the appeal No. 749 of 1982 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter called 'appellate Tribunal') and fourth respondent also filed Appeal No. 918 of 1982. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common order, setting aside the award passed by the arbitrator dated 15th March, 1982 and the matter was remitted back to the Arbitrator for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority remanding the matter for reconsideration, the petitioner had filed the writ petition before this court and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. After dismissal of the writ petition filed by petitioner, the Arbitrator took up the matter afresh and after considering the reply and documentary evidence and also the stand taken by petitioner and the Bank, has passed a detailed order dismissing the dispute raised by petitioner, disbelieving items 12 and 13 which has been elaborately considered and discussed in internal page Nos. 11 and 12 of the order dated 27th May, 2000 vide Annexure-F. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the arbitrator, vide Annexure-F, petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No. 522 of 2000. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal on 30th July, 2002. The Appellate Tribunal, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence with reference to the mandatory provisions of the act and Rules, has dismissed appeal filed by petitioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by both the authorities vide annexures-A and F respectively, as stated above, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, both the orders passed by the Competent authorities are contrary to the material on record, facts and on law. To substantiate the said submission, he placed heavy reliance on the secondary evidence adduced by petitioner in pursuance of the permission accorded by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, wherein the petitioner was permitted to adduce secondary evidence to establish his plea of discharge of part of the claim and the Arbitrator was directed to afford reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce any further evidence. He submitted that, the Exs. P. 21 to P. 30 are neither considered nor any finding has been given on that and has arbitrarily recorded the finding that, petitioner has failed to establish that, he remitted the amount as mentioned in the Xerox copies of the vouchers produced by him. He submitted that, those are the only secondary evidence that are available with the petitioner. This fact has been specifically pleaded and a specific ground also has been taken in the appeal filed by petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal. He submitted that, the Appellate Tribunal also has committed the same error and material illegality in not considering the case put forth by petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside.