Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Smt. Besru vs Chachoga Harijan Handlooms And ... on 25 April, 2016

Author: Sanjay Karol

Bench: Sanjay Karol

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                              CMPMO No.352 of 2015
                              Date of Decision : April 25, 2016




                                                                      .

        Smt. Besru                                                  ...Petitioner.
                         Versus
        Chachoga Harijan Handlooms and Handicraft Production
        Society Ltd. and others





                                           ...Respondents.

        Coram:




                                            of
        The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
        Whether approved for reporting?1 No

        For the Petitioner           :   Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate.
                   rt
        For the Respondents          :   Mr. Puneet Rajta, Deputy Advocate
                                         General for State.

                                         Ms. Seema Kaushal Guleria,
                                         Advocate for R-1.

                                         Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate for
                                         R-3.



        Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)

Certain points are not in dispute. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner assails proclamation notice dated 20.7.2015 (Annexure P-3) and communication dated 20.7.2015 (Annexure P-4). In terms of these impugned Annexures, property belonging to the petitioner is sought to be sold by the respondents on account of non Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:11 :::HCHP

...2...

payment of amounts due towards disbursement of loan.

2. Challenge is laid on the ground that .

petitioner is neither a mortgagor/loanee; nor a member of the Society against whom the award in pursuance whereof impugned action is sought to be taken.

3. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of of the respondents that petitioner is the wife of Ex-

President of the Society. The petitioner and her mother rt had executed a mortgage deed in favour of the respondent-bank. Petitioner has succeeded to such estate. Also, no challenge is laid to the award in terms whereof the impugned action is sought to be taken.

4. In any event, petitioner has an equally alternate and efficacious remedy under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Societies Act, 1968. As such, on this ground alone, keeping in view the decision rendered by this Court in CMPMO No.337 of 2012, titled as The Bilaspur District Truck Operators Co-operative Transport Society Ltd vs. The District Consumer Redressal Forum and others, on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:11 :::HCHP ...3...

30.11.2012, alongwith connected matters, petition needs to be dismissed.

5. It cannot be disputed that the property in .

question originally belonged to Smt. Tirthu, mother of the petitioner and the present petitioner. It is also a matter of record that with her death, Smt. Besru Devi, the present petitioner has succeeded to her Estate.

of Undisputedly, she is the wife of Ex-President, Shri Dila Ram.

6. rt As President of the respondent-Society, Shri Dila Ram had taken loan from the respondent- Kangra Central Cooperative Bank and only when there were serious defaults, proceedings for recovery under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 initiated against the society. Vide Award dated 24.10.2002, passed by Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Kullu, a sum of `70,00,000/- was directed to be recovered from the Society.

Alternatively, such amount was to be recovered by sale of the property in relation to which the petitioner and petitioner's successors-in-interest had executed a mortgage deed in respect of the property.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:11 :::HCHP

...4...

7. It cannot be disputed before this Court that no challenge is laid to the award.

8. Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh State .

Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 reads as under:-

"An appeal shall lie under this section against:-
(a) an order of the Registrar made under sub-

of section (4) of section 8 refusing to register a society;

(b) an order of the Registrar made under sub- rt section (4) of section 11 refusing to registrar an amendment of the bye-laws of a society;

(c ) a decision of a society refusing to admit any person as a member of the society who is otherwise duly qualified for membership under the bye-laws of the society;

(d) a decision of a society expelling any of its members;

(e) an order of the Registrar removing the committee of a co-operative society under section 37;

(f) an order made by the Registrar under section 68 apportioning the cost of the enquiry held under section 67 or an inspection made under section 66;

(g) any order of surcharge under section 69;

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:11 :::HCHP

...5...

(h) any decision or award made under section 73;

(i) an order made be the Registrar under .

section 78 direction the winding up of co-

operative society;

(j) any order made by the liquidator of a society in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 80;

(k) any order made under section 74;

of

(l) an order of the Registrar made under sub-

section (2) of section 11-A; or

(m) an order of the Registrar made under sub- rt section (1) of section 14-A; (2) An appeal against any decision or order under sub-section (1) shall be made within sixty days from the date of decision or order,---

(a) if the decision or order was made by the Registrar, to the Government; or

(b) if the decision or order was made by any other person, to the Registrar.

(3) No appeal shall lie under this section from any decision or order made by the Registrar in appeal."

9. While dealing with the almost similar provisions, this Court in The Bilaspur District Truck Operators Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. (supra), ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:11 :::HCHP ...6...

relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India & Ors, (2011) 14 SCC 337, under identical circumstances, .

dismissed similar petition, directing the petitioner therein to seek alternate remedy.

10. I see no reason to differ with the same. As such, leaving all other issues open, petition is disposed of of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, as may be rt required and desired, including assailing the award.

Interim order stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.



                                                   ( Sanjay Karol ),
     April 25, 2016 (ks)                                Judge.







                                           ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:11 :::HCHP