TANMAY DAS Vs. CONTAI CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and also the learned Advocate for the Contain Co-operative Bank Ltd. authorities. Both the revisional applications have been heard together since the said two revisional cases arise out of the same set of facts. First, C.O. No. 2361 of 2008 is taken up for disposal. Re: C.O. No. 2361 of 2008

(2.) Petitioner's case is that the dispute case No. 421 of 2005-06 was filed by the, petitioner against the opposite parties praying for an award directing the Contain Co-operative Bank Ltd. authorities (hereinafter referred to as the said Bank) to make payment of a certain sum of money to the petitioner and also an amount at a certain rate per day which should be paid by the said Bank to the petitioner till the bus in question is returned to the petitioner. The petitioner also claimed interest. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner took a certain loan from the said Bank keeping the bus as a security and the petitioner made certain repayments towards loan amount. The petitioner's grievance is that the said Bank certainly seized the bus by force and sold the same and the sale proceeds have been adjusted against the claim of the Bank. According to the petitioner, such sale of the bus was absolutely illegal. The Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative society appointed an arbitrator and the said Bank filed a written statement in the said dispute case but such written statement was verified by the person who was the Manager (Operation) and Officiating Secretary of the said Bank. The arbitrator passed an award dated 01.02.2007 awarding a certain sum of money on account of principal claim along with interest. The arbitrator further ordered that if the decreetal amount is not paid with interest and costs on or before a certain date the petitioner shall execute the award for recovery of the decreetal amount. That challenging the said award the said Bank filed an appeal before the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal being Appeal No. 19 of 2007. The Tribunal by judgement dated 5th December, 2007 allowed the said appeal and set aside the said award dated 01.02.2007 and dismissed the dispute case concerned. That challenging the said judgement dated 5th December, 2007 the petitioner has filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the written statement filed in the said dispute case was verified by the Manager (Operation) and Secretary (Officiating) of the said Bank and as such the said written statement was not a valid one and no reliance can be placed on such written statement. The said learned Advocate referred to section 23 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said section 23 states that a registered Co-operative Society shall be a body corporate by its registered name with perpetual succession and a common seal, and with power to acquire, hold and, dispose of property, to enter into contracts, to institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purposes for which it is constituted. The said learned Advocate submitted that the co-operative society concerned as a body corporate could defend the dispute case but in the present case the officiating secretary filed the written statement and as such the written statement is bad in law. He also referred to Rule 48 (j) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) in support of his submission. He further referred to Rule 49 (j), and Rule 171 of the said Rules in support of his above submission.