MANAGING DIRECTOR, R41, SRIVILLIPUTTUR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY Vs. ANANDHARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is R-41 Srivilliputhur Agricultural Producer Co-operative Marketing Society and it is their case that the 1st Respondent herein being the member of the Society entered into an agreement with the Petitioner's Society on 07.12.1995. The Petitioner's Society used to supply cotton to the 1st Respondent herein by procuring cotton from various other Societies under cotton dept scheme. In the said transaction the 1st Respondent was due to the Petitioner's Society to the tune of Rs.23,25,679.10 towards sale amount and Rs.21,68,427.10 towards subsequent interest totally a sum of Rs.44,94,106.20 as on 1998. In order to recover the said amount the Petitioner Society instituted Tha.Va.No.91 of 1998-1999 before the 2nd Respondent herein and the same was decreed by order dated 22.02.2000 directing the 1st Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.55,29,840.37 with 20% interest. Aggrieved over the same, the 1st Respondent herein filed appeal in C.M.A.(C.S).No.4 of 2008 before the learned Principal District Court at Srivilliputhur and the same was partly allowed by order dated 28.11.2014 by directing the 1st Respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.3,81,630.10 to the Petitioner Society and to pay interest for the said amount at the rate of 18.5% from 31.03.1998 onwards till the date of realization. Feeling aggrieved over the same, the Petitioner herein filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner contented that the 1st Respondent herein is liable to pay a sum of Rs.84,77,404.37 to the Petitioner herein regarding purchase of cotton. Since the 1st Respondent herein has not paid the said amount, the Petitioner has initiated Tha.Va.No.91 of 1998-1999 before the 2nd Respondent herein. The 2nd Respondent herein by order dated 31.08.2004 directed the 1st Respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.41,26,803.37 with principal and interest till 31.03.1998. From 01.04.1998 onwards interest was awarded at the rate of 18.5%.

(3.) The learned counsel would further submit that the court below has not at all considered and discussed the 11 documents filed by the Petitioner herein while deciding the appeal. Hence the order passed by the learned District Judge is warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court. Further, the 1st Respondent herein has filed an Insolvency Petition in I.P.No.10 of 2003 as against the Petitioner herein and 3 others before the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur wherein the 1st Respondent herein has admitted the amount due to the Petitioner herein and the same is described as 1st item in 1st schedule. The 1st Respondent herein has sought for equal distribution of his assets as shown in the 2nd schedule to all his creditors including the Petitioner herein. So from the insolvency Petition it is crystal clear that, the 1st Respondent herein is due to the Petitioner's society to the tune of Rs.95,98,1800. However, the Learned District Judge has failed to consider the said fact, has erroneously partly allowed the appeal filed by the 1st Respondent herein. Hence the order and decree passed by the Tribunal below is liable to be set aside. Though the petitioner herein filed the copy of I.P petition in the appeal along with Legal Notice as item No:7 in the list of documents, due to inadvertence the said petition was not marked in the above C.M.A. Hence, the Petitioner herein has filed an application to receive the certified copy of Petition in I.P.No.10 of 2003 as additional evidence in this CRP and the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the said petition may be received as additional evidence and the case may be remitted back to the Principal District Court at Srivilliputtur for fresh consideration on the basis of the additional document. On the side of the 1st Respondent herein neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence is produced. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show that the Petitioner's Society is due to the 1st Respondent herein nearly about 20 lakhs arrived at by the court below is highly arbitrary and unsustainable in law and so it is liable to be set aside.