M.ANZSAR Vs. TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the senior counsel appearing for the appellant, counsel for the first respondent, counsel for the fifth respondent and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

(2.) THE judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 13674/2007 filed by the first respondent -Bank is under challenge. Appellant was a defaulter to the first respondent Bank. This led to filing of ARC No. 32/99 by respondents 1 and 5 against the appellant and the other defaulters. The Arbitrator passed Ext.P1 award dated 27/11/2000, relevant portion of which reads thus: "In exercise of powers conferred on me under Section 7C of Kerala Co -operative Societies Act 1969 the Arbitration case is disposed of directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff bank jointly and severally, the following amounts, till realisation.

(3.) THE 5th respondent filed revision before the Government which was rejected by Ext.P5 order. It was challenging Exts.P4 and P5, the first respondent filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and that judgment is under challenge before us. 4. The contention raised before us is that when the liability was settled by the defaulters, in addition to the contractual rate of interest, 17% interest was realised by the first respondent on the overdue interest. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is illegal and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with Exts.P4 and P5. However, as rightly pointed out by the respective standing counsel for the respondents, Ext.P1 award rendered by the Arbitrator, was not even challenged by the defaulters. That award entitled the bank to realise 17% interest p.a. from 1/6/1994 on overdue interest. When the award passed by the Arbitrator has attained finality and is binding on the parties and when it entitled the Bank to realise 17% interest on overdue interest, the Joint Registrar or the Government could not have modified the same as done in Ext.P4 which was confirmed in Ext.P5. This precisely is the reason which persuaded the learned Single Judge to allow the writ petition. We are not at all satisfied that the view taken by the learned Single Judge suffers from any illegality calling for interference in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.