HIMADRI ROY Vs. CONTAI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order and judgement being Order No. 17 dated January 11 th , 2012 passed by the learned Judge, West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal at Calcutta in an unregistered appeal No. 13 of 2009 arising out of judgement and award dated February 10 th , 2009 passed by the learned Arbitrator, Co-operative Development Officer, Purba Midnapur II, Contai in A.R.C.S. Dispute Case No. 116-2008-09.

(2.) The proforma opposite parties No. 2 Smt. Minati Jana, No. 3 Munmun Jana and No. 4 Amit Kumar Jana applied for loan to purchase a luxury bus before the opposite party No. 1 Contai Cooperative Bank Ltd. Purba Midnapur. It is alleged that the loanee failed to pay the loan amount to the opposite party No. 1 Contai Cooperative Bank Ltd. in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said loan sanctioned. The opposite party No. 1 thereafter filed a dispute case being No. 116 of 2008-2009 before the Arbitrator, Cooperative Development Officer, Purba Midnapur II. The petitioner No. 1 Himadri Roy, petitioner No. 2 Smt. Chandra Roy and petitioner No. 3 Sri Bhaskar Mitra stood as a guarantor of the said loan. The fact of non-payment of loan amount in time before the opposite party No. 1 was beyond the knowledge of the petitioner. No correspondences were made either by the debtor or by the bank. On receipt of notice from learned arbitrator the petitioners No. 1 and 3 namely Himadri Roy and Sri Bhaskar Mitra executed a power of attorney in favour of petitioner No. 2 Smt. Chandra Roy appointing to deal with the aforesaid case, revision appeal or execution case etc. The petitioner No. 1 Himadri Roy resides in Dubai for his job and petitioner NO. 3 resides at Bagnan and busy in his job. The petitioner No. 2 Smt. Chandra Roy became very much ill and completely unable to look after the matter as such she could not appear before the learned arbitrator on October 20 th , 2012. She sent a letter on October 3 rd , 2008 on behalf of the petitioner including herself and the said letter was received by the arbitrator. On October 15 th , 2008 the petitioner No. 2 by the aforesaid letter requested the learned arbitrator to drop the proceeding as they were dark about the seizure of the Luxury Bus and also sale of the same and the non-payment of EMIS and/or dues of the bank till receiving the summons of the case.

(3.) The learned Arbitrator in spite of receipt of the aforesaid letter passed an ex-parte order of award on February 10 th , 2009 and petitioners came to know about such award as and when they received the copy of the award in the third week of February, 2009.