T SRINIVASA Vs. J J PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act'), to take action for disobeying the Award/order dated 2-5-08 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies/departmental Arbitrator, in Dispute No. JRD/ubf/10064/2005-06 and to punish the accused.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts which have led to the filing of this contempt petition are as follows : the complainant was admitted as an Associate member of the Bhavasara Kshatriya co-operative Society Ltd. , Bangalore-53 ('society', for short) in the year 1991. He represented to the Society on 15-10-03 for regular membership, on which no action was taken. Consequently he filed a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'societies Act') with a prayer to direct the Society to admit him as a regular member. The said dispute which was referred for adjudication, was contested by the society and the learned Departmental Arbitrator has passed an Award on 2-5-2008 allowing the dispute in part and directing the society to admit the complainant as a regular member from the date of the Award. Alleging that, the said Award has not been complied with and that there is wilful disobedience by the accused, who is an in-charge Secretary of the Society, this contempt petition has been filed.

(3.) WE have heard Sri N. Ramachandra, learned Advocate for the complainant, who contended that, the Arbitrator stands on the same footing as that of a subordinate Court and the disobedience complained of falls within the definition of Section 2 (b) of the act and hence, this Court has the power under Section 10 of the Act to take cognizance of the contempt alleged against the accused and committed by him. He contended that, the provisions contained in Section 109 of the society Act is not efficacious, bacause of the procedure contemplated therein, which is required to be followed, there would be undue delay in the matter of conclusion of the proceeding, which would defeat the very object of the Arbitrator passing the Award. He further contended that, to ensure that justice is being done to the complainant, the remedy provided under the Act, for the committing of contempt of an order passed by the subordinate Court, the petition may be entertained and further action taken against the accused as provided under Section 12 of the Act.