SPECIAL OFFICER AMBUR CO OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS Vs. SPECIAL OFFICER VELLORE DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a co -operative society (Sugar Mill) and the relief sought for in the writ petition, is to quash the order passed by the third respondent Tribunal dated 18.06.2001, confirming the award of the fourth respondent dated 08.04.1994.

(2.) THE petitioner society as well as the second respondent society have their accounts with the first respondent bank and all transactions of both the societies are carried out through their respective accounts maintained with the first respondent bank. On 23.2.1985, the first respondent bank wrongly debited a sum of Rs.3,43,677.72ps. for the money payable by the second respondent society. This error was not deducted by the petitioner for nearly five years and it came to their knowledge only on 12.03.1990. After which, action was taken and the error was rectified on 19.06.1990 and the first respondent bank credited the said amount to the petitioner's account. Thereafter, the petitioner claimed compound interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the five year period and made a claim of Rs.5,33,036/ -. Since the first respondent failed to accept the claim, the petitioner raised a dispute before the fourth respondent under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co -operative Societies Act, 1983, (Act) and claimed a sum of Rs,7,66,125/ -. The dispute was taken on file by the fourth respondent as ARC No.1799/92 -93. The fourth respondent passed an award dated 08.04.1994, awarding a sum of Rs.1,48,403/ - with interest at 12% p.a. from 20.06.1990, to be paid by the second respondent society to the petitioner. Not satisfied with the said award, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Co -operative Tribunal, the third respondent, under Section 152 of the Act. The Tribunal by its judgment and decree dated 18.06.2001, confirmed the award and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Challenging the award passed by the fourth respondent as confirmed in appeal by the third respondent, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent ought to have been directed to compensate the loss, by paying compound interest and the respondents 3 and 4 erred in not awarding interest for the period during which the money was enjoyed by the second respondent. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner was fully justified in claiming compound interest, since the second respondent is a sugar mill doing commercial activity.