Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the respondents filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka, which was allowed by its judgment and order dated 29.11.1985.
22453 of 2004 and 17054 of 2004, setting aside order dated 9.2.2004 passed in the Revision Petition No.
The said sum may also be recovered from the sale of the moveable properties of the respondents.
I am of the opinion that the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as number maintainable at the preliminary stage of admission.
The learned High Court held as under From a reading of the provisions of Section 108, it is clear that suo moto, the Government, may at anytime exercise the power of revisions or if it is at the instance of the party, within six months.
410 of 2006 questioning the companyrectness of the order dated 24.1.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.
22453 of 2004.
While upholding the findings of the learned single judge of the High Court, the Division Bench held as under In addition to this, we have already numbericed from the order sheet of the Arbitrator produced as Annexure C that the numberices were issued to the appellants and the service of summons on them was held as sufficient and the appellants were treated as ex parte.
Therefore, the appellants were required to file a revision petition within six months from the date of companyfirmation of the same, since the sale is companyfirmed in 1985.
The appellants thereafter filed a Revision Petition under Section 108 of the KCS Act before the Minister of Co operation, Government of Karnataka.
I am of the opinion that the DRCS should have examined the facts and circumstances of the auction sale in the appeals before him and decide the matter.
That being so, the observation of the Tribunal that the numberices were number served upon the appellants is incorrect.
The appellants preferred Writ Appeal No.411 of 2006 c w Writ Appeal No.
Though the case has a chequered history, we refer to the facts in brief hereunder, which are required to appreciate the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties The appellants are small farmers who had availed a loan of Rs.16,000/ from the Kadur Taluk Primary Co Operative Land Development Bank Ltd. hereinafter the Bank by mortgaging their entire immoveable agricultural property as security for the same.
The appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 09.05.1986.
It was further held by the learned single judge that in any case, the said circular was number at all applicable when the property was transferred to a third party.
By order dated 09.02.2004, the Minister of Cooperation allowed the Revision Petition filed by the appellants and set aside the order of Sale companyfirmation dated 10.12.1985, as well as the orders of appeal dated 09.05.1986 and order of Review dated 17.08.1996.
In addition to this the Tribunal has failed to see that the 5th respondent appeared and companysented for a decree.
The State Government of Karnataka also challenged the order by way of filing Writ Petition No.
The learned High Court held on the issue of the appeal before the Tribunal being barred by limitation as under While respondent 4 had filed his appeal appeal No.
CMW 33 CAP 98 by the Minister of Cooperation on the ground that the Revision Petition filed by the appellants herein is barred by limitation and is companytrary to the provisions of Section 108 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 hereinafter KCS Act .
Every one of the reasons on which those respondents sought of companydonation of delay in filing their reading of the applications should have rejected that respondents 5 and 6 had number been served, had companydoned the delay in filing the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeals, and held that the Revision Petition filed before the Minister under Section 108 was barred by time.
The Minister allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the companyfirmation of the sale of the land of the appellants in favour of the auction purchaser.
The Writ Appeal preferred by the appellants against the order of the High Court dated 29.11.1985 was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 01.03.1990.
I am somewhat distressed at the way the Tribunal has dealt with the appeals and has companydoned the inordinate and inexplicable delay in filing the appeals.
On the basis of the judgment in the above mentioned Writ Petition, the respondent Bank companyfirmed the sale of the land of the appellants vide certificate dated 10.12.1985.
The same was challenged by the appellants before the Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies, who dismissed it on the ground that the appellants have number proved how the companyfirmation of sale is companytrary to the provisions of the KCS Act, despite the fact of the repayment of the loan amount to the Bank being brought to his numberice.
The companytroversy arose in the case when the learned Arbitrator passed the ex parte order dated 31.5.1975 against the appellants.
The appellants then filed a Review Petition under Rule 38 5 a of the KCS Rules, challenging the order of companyfirmation of sale of the immoveable property passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co Operative Societies dated 10.12.1985, which petition was dismissed as number maintainable vide order dated 17.08.1996, on the ground that an appeal filed challenging the same had already been dismissed.
The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal set aside the same vide order dated 27.12.1983.
431 of 1981 after six years.
Without any doubt, the view taken by the Tribunal that the award made by the arbitrator in 1975 to which respondent 4 companysented was a valid award and there was hardly any ground for the Tribunal to take exception to the same after six years in the case of one appeal and after 7 years in the case of another appeal.
17054 of 2004 etc.
6642 of 1984 set aside the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 29.11.1985.
The learned Arbitrator, passed an ex parte award in favour of the Bank by his order dated 31.05.1975, holding as under it is hereby declared that the amount due to the petitioner on account of principal and interest and companyts calculated upto 11th day of April 1975 is Rs 20.637 23 and that such amount shall carry interest at 12 per cent per annum from the said date viz.
11.4.1975, until realization and it is hereby ordered that the said amount shall be recovered by sale of the schedule mortgaged properties or a sufficient part thereof and if the amount fell due with interest and companyts is number realized by the said sale, the balance shall be recovered from the respondents personally.
A Revision Petition was then filed before the wrong forum, which was rejected.
411 of 2006 and 410 of 2006 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, thereby upholding the judgment and order of the learned single judge passed in Writ Petition Nos.
During the pendency of the appeal, the State Government of Karnataka issued a numberification in respect of the borrowers of the Bank, which, inter alia, stated as under It is hereby informed to the loan members of Kadur Taluk Primary Cooperative Land Development Bank that as per the Government order, those members who have the balance by the end of June 1982 and special discount is given for the year 1982 83 On 30.06.82 those who had the balance applicable to the suit decreed loans also if the principal amount is paid in a single payment before 30.6.1983 interest and companypound interest will be companypletely exempted Pursuant to this offer, the appellant paid to the Bank the entire remaining loan amount of Rs.7050/ on 30.06.1983, excluding the interest as he had already deposited an amount of Rs.9,000/ with the Karnataka Cooperative Society on 07.09.1981.
The appellants had informed the Bank regarding the repayment of loan on 29.06.1983.
Aggrieved of the same, the appellants then preferred a Revision Petition under Section 108 of the KCS Act, before the Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies which was dismissed as number maintainable, vide order dated 22.05.1997.
The learned judge held that the order passed in the Revision Petition was perverse and arbitrary.
The Deputy Registrar held as under This Court has numberjurisdiction to entertain the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 108 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1959.
The said order of the Minister was set aside by the learned High Court.
The appellate authority has number companysidered the claim of the appellants on merit.
A decree or an award against a person who has number been served at the highest may be an irregularity and does number amount to a case of inherent want of jurisdiction nullifying such a decree on that ground.
The learned Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellants vide order dated 27.12.1983, and remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator, to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving proper numberice to all the parties.
Then a Revision Petition under Section 108 of the KCS Act was filed before the Minister for Cooperation, State Government of Karnataka.
Hence, the present appeals.
The subsequent action of the petitioners in filing appeals before the JRCS have all been exercised in futility because the matter was number given thought on merits all along by the authorities.
The Division Bench of the High Court held that numberground for interfering with the order of the single judge is made out and the appeals were dismissed.
The appellants companyld number have filed a revision in 1998, 13 years after the orders of companyfirmation.
These lands were situated at Sakkarepatna village of Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur, descriptions of which are stated hereunder in survey numbers and their measurements Admittedly, the appellants initially were able to pay only one instalment of the loan, and were number able to pay the subsequent instalments.
In my opinion, the companyditions of loan default that prevailed then, with these petitioners were surely companying within the ambit of the companyditions stipulated in the circular dated 02.03.1984 which is based on a government order it would be appropriate to make all efforts to see that such a benefit reached the persons to whom it was intended to reach in the first place emphasis laid by this Court The auction purchaser respondent number 6 herein challenged the aforementioned order of Minister of Cooperation dated 09.02.2004 passed in the Revision Petition, by way of filing Writ Petition No.
Setting aside the order of the Tribunal, the High Court held On any view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal which suffers from errors of jurisdiction and illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction, had occasioned grave failures of justice to the petitioner and respondents 7 and has done doubtful justice to respondents 4 to 6 is liable to be interfered with by me under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Being aggrieved of the award of the Arbitrator as well as the sale of the property, the appellants filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.
It was held by the Minister as under I am of the opinion that the matter has number been dealt with in a just manner by the appellate authority.
Assuming that reason opinion, particularly having regard to the fact that they were number other than the sons of respondent 4, who had appeared before the Arbitrator and had companysented for a decree sought by the society.
The companyfirmation of sale of the property in question was done on the basis of the order in the above mentioned Writ Petition.
The appeal filed against the companyfirmation of sale was rejected by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide order dated 09.05.1986.
On the issue of the order of the Arbitrator being passed ex parte against the respondents therein, the High Court held as under An award decree made against a person, though he was number served in the proceedings, is never companysidered as a decree made without jurisdiction.
On 27.05.1981, the bank companyducted the auction sale of the immoveable property in public auctions and the bid stood at Rs.40,050/ .
The order of the Minister of Co operation, Government of Karnataka in the Revision Petition setting aside the companyfirmation of sale was set aside by the learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
In the meanwhile, on 10.12.1985, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a certificate of sale under Rule 38 7 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 hereinafter KCS Rules in favour of the auction purchaser S.V. Vijaydev respondent number6 herein , thereby companyfirming the sale of the lands of the appellants herein.
Therefore the order of companyfirmation of sale passed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
The High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.
While I am aware the auction sale was held in 1981, it is unfortunate that number enough efforts have been made by the authorities to see the case at hand in an objective manner and the facts have number been analysed with respect to the benefit of interest waiver ordered by the State Government that was intended to reach the needy farmer.
The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 02.07.2012 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.
The same was upheld by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals.
6642 of 1984 set aside the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 27.12.1983 on the ground that the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation.
The Writ Appeals filed by the appellants were also dismissed.
Available facts indicate that such an effort was number made and the matter went into litigation for years.
From this it follows that the order of the Tribunal, which suffers from manifest illegalities in exercise of its jurisdiction is liable to be quashed.
The learned single judge by a companymon judgment and order dated 24.01.2008 quashed the order of the Minister dated 09.02.2004.
On the principles of regulating the companydonation of delay, the Tribunal should have rejected their appeals also in limine.
The Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.
It was further held that the benefit of the circular dated 02.03.1984 was only for the exemption of the interest, and that the same would number enable the government to set aside the auction of the land which was companyducted and companyfirmed in December, 1985.
The appellants and the 5th respondent were living together under one roof.
In the instant case, the revision petition was filed by the appellants.
Aggrieved of the same, the appellants preferred an appeal under Section 106 of the KCS Act before the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Chikmagalur District.
The respondent Bank filed a petition before the Arbitrator of Co Operative Societies, Chikmagalur District, which was registered as a case in Dispute T.C 75/1974 1975.
17054 of 2004 before the High Court of Karnataka.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.
While dismissing the appeal, the learned Deputy Registrar held as under The appellants have companytended that the action of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, is companytrary to law, but they have number specifically mentioned or proved as to how the companyfirmation of sale is in violation of the K.C.S Act or companytrary to Rule 38 of the K.C.S Act and the Rules.
