ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged order dated 28.11.2006 passed by Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hisar; order dated 17.7.2007 passed by Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and order dated 25.2.2008 passed by Secretary, Cooperative Societies, Haryana. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 4 lacs from respondent No. 4 on 24.12.1996 repayable in 10 half yearly installments. First installment was payable on 31.7.1997 and last installment on 31.1.2002. The petitioner repaid a sum of Rs. 99,000/ -. The loan amount was taken by the petitioner for a Poultry Farm. The petitioner mortgaged three acres of land to secure the aforesaid loan. Since the loan amount was not repaid, recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the arbitration proceedings were started under Section 102, 103 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act'). The Deputy Registrar, Haryana Cooperative Societies, vide his order dated 28.11.2006 ordered for recovery of the remaining amount with 18% interest with a rider that if the amount is paid by the petitioner within the stipulated time, then rate of interest be calculated separately and if he does not pay, then he shall have to pay the same with compound interest.

(2.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 114 of the Act, which was partly allowed by the Additional Registrar -cum -Chief Auditor Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Panchkula vide his order dated 17.7.2007 as the interest which was ordered to be charged @ 18% per annum compound was modified to 18% simple.

(3.) THE only argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken loan for agricultural purposes much -less for Poultry Farm and is in debt of the respondent/respondent No. 4. He has referred to the provisions of The Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1989 to contend that the respondent -bank cannot charge the amount more than double the principal amount, meaning thereby the petitioner is not liable to pay more than Rs. 8 lacs even after including the interest component but counsel for the respondent/bank vehemently argued that the provisions of the Act of 1989, would not apply to the case of the petitioner because had the petitioner been aggrieved against the recovery of principal amount more than the double, then he should have moved an application in terms of the provisions of the Act, which would have been placed before the Debt Conciliation Board, who would have taken a decision.