M.SASIDHARAN Vs. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is directed against judgment dated 01.02.2018 in W.P.(C). No. 14893 of 2010. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant. He moved the said writ petition assailing Ext.P4 judgment passed by the Co-operative Tribunal in A.P. No. 27 of 2008. The appeal was filed against Ext.P1 award passed in ARC No. 70 of 1993, which was moved by the third respondent herein. The third respondent viz., the Pantheerankavu Ksheerolpadaka Co-operative Society Ltd. No. 9(D) filed the said arbitration case for realisation of the amount mentioned therein with interest on the allegation that the appellant/petitioner, while functioning as the Secretary of the third respondent society for the period from 1985 to 1992, misappropriated an amount of Rs. 3,99,046.57. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions, the Arbitrator passed Ext.P1 award directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,99,046.57 with simple interest @ 12% per annum from 7.6.1993 till realisation. The appellate Tribunal modified the award and reduced the liability by deducting a sum of Rs. 1,11,032.18. In all other respects, the award was confirmed by the appellate Tribunal. In other words, only an amount of Rs. 2,88,014.39 with interest @ 12% was allowed to be recovered by the Tribunal. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order that the captioned writ petition was filed by the appellant herein. As per the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge, interfered with the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal to the extent of reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 6% p.a. It is dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the said judgment that this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. Narration of facts or factual consideration based on re-appreciation of evidence is uncalled for, rather impermissible in the case on hand in view of the factual and legal position obtained in this case.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Tribunal modifying the order in ARC No. 70 of 1993 on the ground that sufficient evidence was available on record for the Arbitrator and the appellate Tribunal to conclude with the findings and in such circumstances, this Court could not interfere with the findings on facts. The said view taken by the learned Single Judge is the correct legal position in view of the settled position of law. The main relief sought for by the appellant in the writ petition is to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P4. In the decision in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque [AIR 1955 SC 233], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that writ jurisdiction is supervisory and the court exercising it, in proceedings for certiorari, is not to act as an appellate court. In the decision in Union Of India v. R.V Swamy Alias R. Vellaichamy [(1997) 9 SCC 446 : AIR 1997 SC 2069], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the writ court would not re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own conclusions of fact for that recorded by the adjudicating body below. In the decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B Staff Canteen Workers Union [(2000) 4 SCC 245 : AIR 2000 SC 1508], the Apex Court laid down the relevant principle on the scope of interference in proceedings for certiorari on the ground of insufficiency or inadequacy of material evidence to sustain the finding of fact recorded by an adjudicating body, as follows: " "