SHIVAPUTRAGOUDA CHANDREGOUDA PATIL Vs. S G HIREMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of an award made by the Arbitrator and affirmed by the Karnataka Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, is called into question in this petition under Article 227.

(2.) The petitioner was a Secretary of the Shiggaon Taluka Co-operative Agricultural Association, which is a society, registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The Society raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act claiming Rupees 3,358-51 from the petitioner stating that be was liable to pay as per the accounts maintained by the Society. Before the Arbitrator, on behalf of the Society, its President and the Auditor were examined as P. Ws.1 and 2. The petitioner did not examine himself. Instead, he filed a statement describing the same as a statement made on oath. The Arbitrator on his own appraisal of the evidence, held that there was a shortage in cash balance and deficiency in stock worth Rs. 3,358-51, which the petitioner was liable to make good. He accordingly made an award, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition under Article 227.

(3.) Out of the three contentions urged by Sri. R. P. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner, the first related to the law o limitation. Counsel said that the case against the petitioner was governed by the rule of two years as provided by the proviso to Rule 31 (2) of the Co-operative Societies Rule, 1960 and not by the rule of six years as stated by the Tribunal. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of this Court in Timanna Vishveshwar Bhat v. Vijravalli Village Vyavasaya Sahakar Sangh Ltd, (1970) 1 Mys LJ 80. Therein, this Court was concerned with the scope of R. 31 (2) which provides a period of limitation of six years from the date of the cause of action. The case is not directly on the point with which we are now concerned. Counsel also relied upon another decision of this Court in Sri Kaishnaraja Wadayar Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Ratnam Gopalaswamy Iyengar, (1971) 2 Mys LJ 455 = (AIR 1972 Mys 117). This case was also not concerned with the scope of the proviso to Rule 31 (2). In that case, the Court considered only the validity of Rule 31 (2), and therefore not relevant to our problem. The case which is directly on the point and against the contention urged for the petitioner is D. H. Raghavendra Rao v. Bellary Town Co-operative Stores Ltd., (1973) 1 Mys LJ 12. A Bench of this Court while dealing with the scope of the proviso to Rule 31 (2) has stated that the words 'act or omission' in the first proviso to Rule 31 (2) would not include every act or omission giving rise to a dispute, but they have reference only to a civil wrong where a claim is based on tort or wrongful act. in the said decision, it was clearly held that the claim of the Society, unless it is based on tort or wrongful act, is governed by the rule of six years of limitation as provided by Rule 31 (2). The Tribunal has applied the ratio of Raghavendra Rao's case, and in my opinion, very correctly. But all these decisions are only of academic importance today. After the introduction of Section 70A by Karnataka Amendment Act 39 of 1975, the period of limitation for all disputes except those relating to election, is six years from the date of the cause of action. The said Section is retrospective in nature and reads thus: