PARTHA PRATIM GHOSH Vs. JAGADISH DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under article 227 of the Constitution of India. This application has been filed by Sri Partha Pratim Ghosh, Smt. Parul Ghosh, Sri Tapan Kumar Das and Smt. Sephali Das relating to an application for stay filed and moved before Ld. West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal in connection with judgment and award being dispute case No.28 of 2007 dated 28.11.2007 passed by Ld. Arbitrator against the present petitioners named above. The said dispute case No.28 of 2007 was filed by Sri Jagadish Debnath and Sri Amitava Debnath against Sri Subrata Barman, Sri Tribendranath Som, Smt. Parul Ghosh, Sri Partha Pratim Ghosh, Tapan Kr. Das, Sephali Das, Dr. Asesh Mukherjee alleging illegal transfer of the cooperative society property, by five deeds which are void ab initio u/s 95 of West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983.

(2.) THE cause of action of such dispute case is that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Sri Subrata Barman and Tribendranath Som had sold cooperative property by separate registrar deeds at the office of ADSR/Barasat on 14.12.2000, 10.05.1989 and 17.07.1989 to the defendant No 3 Smt. Parul Ghosh defendant No.4, Sri Partha Pratim Ghosh defendant No 5, Sri Tapan Das defendant No 6, Smt. Sephali Das. The defendant Nos 1 and 2 executed the sale deeds with the help of a power of attorney. The said power of attorney was not registered as per norms and as such illegal and allegedly to be false one. The Ld. Arbitrator on conclusion of the arbitration proceedings passed award against the present petitioners holding that the deeds being executed by defendant No 2 in favour of defendant Nos 3, 4, 5 and 6 namely Sri Putul Ghosh, Sri Partha Pratim Ghosh, Sri Tapan Kr. Das, Sri Sephali Das are bad-in-law and void ab initio. The present petitioners against whom the award has been passed preferred appeal before West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal being appeal case No.24 of 2008 challenging the said award by the arbitrator. In course of hearing of the appeal before Ld. West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal an application was filed before the Tribunal by the present petitioners on 12.01.2011 praying for stay of the operation of award passed on 28.11.2007. The said stay application was heard by the Ld. Tribunal and passed the impugned order dated 13.01.2011 refusing to grant stay as prayed for. The very ground as stated by the Ld. Tribunal in their impugned order is that dispute case was disposed of in November, 2007, appeal filed in 2008. The matter has been heard in full. Both the parties advanced their arguments and the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment. At this stage such petition of stay should not be entertained. Ld. Tribunal relied Upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC Page 993 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that where hearing is completed the parties have no rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court under Order 20 Rule 1 of I.P.C. permits judgment to be delivered as there is nothing to be heard more. Ld. Tribunal disbelieve the contention in the present petitioners before Ld. Tribunal in connection with the stay petition that entire proceedings were done behind their back and they are not the persons who filed this appeal or put signature on the case record.

(3.) NONE of the opposite parties filed any affidavit-in-opposition or made any submission in respect of maintainability of the dispute against the said petition filed by the present petitioners before Ld. Tribunal. The only contention of the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties hearing before Ld. Tribunal that hearing part was completed and the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment. So, there is nothing to heard anything more. The Court under the provision of Order 20 Rule 1 is simply to pronounce necessary judgment. On careful perusal of the certified copy of the order impugned it appears the stay petition was filed on 11.01.2011. Same was taken up for hearing by the Ld. Tribunal on 12.01.2011 and the tribunal fixed for passing order on 13.01.2011. In the stay petition, the applicants pray for stay of operation of the award passed on 28.11.2007. It is contented in the said stay application that dispute case was filed and disposed of behind back of the applicants. The applicants did not file any appeal. In fact, the signature appears on the case file as applicants are not genuine. Therefore, the award passed appears against the fictitious person. So, same must be stayed and the signatures should be sent for verification for hand writing expert.