GOUR CHANDRA PRAMANIK Vs. RANAGHAT PEOPLES BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit with the prayer for a, declaration that an award made in favour of the Ranaghat People's Bank, Ltd., the defendant in the suit, under Rule 22 of the Rules framed under Section 43, Co-operative Societies Act (2 of 1912), against the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 489-8-0, was without jurisdiction, and null and void as such. It was the case of the plaintiff before the Court that the award had not the force of a decree; was not capable of execution as decree passed by a competent civil Court. The plaintiff prayed for the relief that a permanent injunction be granted to restrain the Bank for executing the award. The Bank asserted that the award was a valid award under the law, and was not liable to be called in question in any civil Court.

(2.) The Courts below have agreed in dismissing the plaintiff's suit; and in support of the appeal to this Court it was urged that inasmuch as in the reference the Bank had included a stranger as surety for the debt, the whole reference was incompetent in law, and in this connection the point was raised that there was variation of the reference by the arbitrator who made the award; one of the sureties, the stranger not having been mentioned at all, and the rights and liabilities as between the principal debtor and the two sureties mentioned in the reference to the arbitration had not been determined by the arbitrator. It was in the next place urged in support of the appeal that the lower appellate Court had put an erroneous construction upon the Clauses (6) and (7), Rule 22 in holding that these clauses covered the case of an award made by a single arbitrator; it being contended on this part of the case, that the rules contemplated that to have the force of a decree there must be an award by three arbitrators. The contention lastly urged on behalf of the appellant was that there being no evidence on the record to show that any notice or summons was served upon the appellant, the Court below should not have presumed service of such notice or summons, and that notice or summons not having been served on the appellant, the whole proceeding of arbitration and the award made by the arbitrators were without jurisdiction.

(3.) The questions thus raised are no doubt substantial questions relating to the validity of the award sought to be challenged by the plaintiff-appellant in this Court; but it has to be noticed in this connection that all these questions were the subject-matter of consideration before the civil Court at a previous stage The question raised in the case before the Courts below, and those submitted for our consideration were raised in the form of objections in a proceeding in execution started by the Ranaghat Peoples Bank Limited for enforcement of the award passed by the arbitrator, by realization of the amount covered by the award, from the plaintiff, the appellant before us. The questions were decided by the executing Court, in favour of the decree-holder Bank, the objections raised by the appellant having been negatived. It would appear from the decisions given in the execution proceedings under S 47, Civil P.C., that the question of service of notice or summons when the reference to the arbitrator was dealt with, was decided against the appellant by the executing Court, and in appeal the question of non- service of notice or summons was not even pressed. The other questions raised in this appeal were dealt with by the executing Court and the Court of appeal at that stage.