DEVA RAJ Vs. DISTRICT CANE OFFICER SAHRANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the notice dated 22 -9 -1971 issued by the District Cane Officer, Saharanpur under Section 91 of the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling upon the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4401.32 failing which the amount shall be realised by sale of his properties.

(2.) IT appears that the Petitioner was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,000/ -out of which a sum of Rs. 1500/ -was paid to him on 26 -11 -1962. The loan was for setting up a tubewell. The balance amount of Rs. 1500/ -was kept in the Petitioner's account but was payable after the work had been commenced by him. Since the Petitioner failed to utilize even the initial advance of Rs. 1,500/ -the remaining part of the sanctioned loan was not released. Notices demanding the amount were served on the Petitioner on various dates. The notices included the principal together with the interest due upto the date of the notice. The Petitioner denied his liability to pay the amount claimed. The dispute was referred to arbitration. In fact these arbitration cases were started on the basis of three notices served on the Petitioner. The difference in the amount mentioned in the notices was due to the difference i the amount of interest which had fallen due when the notices were issued. It is not disputed that the arbitration proceedings are still pending.

(3.) SECTION 91 of the Act provides fora remedy to the Cooperative Society for recovery of the amount due to it. It is open to the Society to make an application to the Registrar or any other Gazetted Officer subordinate to him and authorised by him in this behalf who on being satisfied of the existence of the debt or outstanding demand make an order directing the payment of such debt or outstanding demands due to the society by any member or past or deceased member, by sale of the property or any interest therein, which is the subject matter of charge. This remedy is available notwithstanding the fact that the remedy by way of arbitration is also available to the society. This remedy cannot be availed of while the matter has already been referred to the arbitration and the Arbitrator is seized of the dispute between the parties. The opening words of the section "notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter IX" does not mean that the remedy under Section 91 may be availed of even in a case where the dispute is being enquired into by the Arbitrator. It only implies that this remedy is available to the Society apart from the remedy available under Section 70 of the Act. Both the remedies cannot be availed of simultaneously. Since the dispute between the parties is before the Arbitrator, recourse could not be had to the remedy provided under Section 91 of the Act in respect of the same matter.