@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.-The petitioner is the Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita, Nagenahalli, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District. It is aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, passed in Appeal No. 829/1987. The impugned order is dated 6-2-1990.
2. The facts leading to this petition may be briefly stated and they are as follows. One Yariswamy, an employee of the petitioner-Society stood surety for the loan advanced by the petitioner-Society to one of its members and offered as security certain immovable property. The loan was not repaid. The Society initiated recovery proceedings against the principal debtor as well as the surety. In that process they purchased the property offered as security for the Society itself. However, by a resolution dated 15-7-1985 the President and four other Directors of the Board of Management of the petitioner Society resolved to reconvey the land to the said Yariswamy on condition that he should repay the sum of Rs. 28,000/-within three years from the date of the resolution. However, on a subsequent date that resolution came to be superseded by yet another resolution rescinding the resolution dated 15-5-1985 inter alia on the ground that the earlier resolution was passed without quorum at the Board meeting. In the meanwhile, said Yariswamy, the defaulter-surety had paid Rs. 28,000/- by 31-7-1987 even before the three year period granted by the rescinded resolution. Despite that the property in question was not reconveyed. Therefore, he raised a dispute. That dispute came to be referred to the 2nd respondent-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hospet. By his judgment dated 17-8-1987, in dispute No. 1/87-88 on his file, he rejected the reference inter alia holding that the Board was competent to pass the second resolution rescinding the earlier resolution and therefore the dispute was liable to be rejected. That is how the appeal came to be filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the Counsel for parties noticed that the Arbitrator while rejecting the dispute had not taken into consideration the provisions contained in Rule 38A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which had been the subject matter of more than one decision by this Court. The Tribunal has drawn its own attention to the ruling of this Court in the case of Neelakantappa v P.L.D. Bank (1981(1) Karnataka Law Chronic, 471). There is also a reference to two other decisions rendered in two other writ petitions to the same effect. The said decisions explain the scope, ambit and effect of Rule 38A of the Rules. In that circumstance, they remitted the matter to the Arbitrator to consider the correct legal position and case of the appellant before it in the light of the rulings of this Court and in regard to application of Rule 38A of the said Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the Society has preferred this writ petition.
3. Admittedly, the Society purchased the property in question at the sale conducted in execution proceedings in accordance with the procedure under Sec. 101 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 38 of the Rules.
4. Unfortunately, the appellant before the Tribunal did not found his dispute on any other ground except the resolution passed in his favour on 15-7-1985. Apparently, the Tribunal having regard to the effect of sub-rule (2) of Rule 38A of the Rules has remitted the matter for fresh consideration in the light of that provision. To my mind the order is just. The Co- operative Society for its object does not have acquisition of property secured to it for non-repayment of loan. If the loan amount had been repaid by whatever means at whatever point of time and at the instance of any person the property must be returned. If that is the object of the remand made by the Tribunal, this Court considers that to be a just and proper order notwithstanding want of pleadings in that behalf before the Arbitrator. When this Court in its special jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution is satisfied that the impugned order is passed to meet the ends of justice, its discretion will certainly lie in favour of doing justice and not doing injustice.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is rejected so that the Arbitrator may apply the rulings of the Court to the facts of the case of respondent which he could have raised at any time as a pure question of law.
Writ Petition Rejected.
