PEOPLES URBAN CO OP BANK LTD Vs. MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Chairman of People's Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. No.51, a cooperative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. Action was initiated against respondents 1 and 2 to realise the loan amount taken by them from the Society. First respondent had taken a loan of Rs.5,000/- on 18-5-1983 under the housing loan scheme on mortgage of five cents of land. As the first respondent failed to repay the principal amount with interest as per the terms of the loan agreement despite repeated demands Society initiated arbitration proceedings against him as per A.R.C. 589 of 1989. Society obtained arbitration award dated 28-7-1989 for the recovery of Rs.8,227.25 with interest at the rate of 19% from 1-2-1989. As the first respondent failed to remit the award amount, Society initiated execution proceedings by filing E.P. 108 of 1991 before the 4th respondent. 3rd respondent was appointed as the Sale Officer for the sale of the immovable property in execution of the award. Though similar action was taken against the second respondent for realisation of the loan amount/she had taken from the Society, she had paid the entire money due to the society.

(2.) Petitioner challenges Ext. P8 order passed by the third respondent dated 21-2-1992. Third respondent held that the proclamation has not been carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down under R.81(e) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969and hence the auction held on 20-2-1992 is not in order. Accordingly the auction was cancelled.

(3.) Contention of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent was not justified in doing so. Counsel for the petitioner contended that all formalities under the Act and Rules were complied with and hence Ext. P8 order cannot be legally sustained. It is also contended by the petitioner's counsel that the 3rd respondent has no power to set aside the auction especially when the 1st respondent did not make any motion in that behalf. Counsel for the 1st respondent pointed out that the averments in the Original Petition would disclose non compliance of R.81(e) and so the petitioner cannot legally sustain the petition. It is also contended that the impugned order is an appealable one and as the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy open to him the writ petition is not maintainable.