Karnataka High Court
T Srinivasa vs J J Prakash on 16 December, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 KARNATAKA 86, 2009 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 612 (KAR.), 2009 (5) ALJ (NOC) 842 (KAR.), 2009 (2) AIR KANT HCR 453, 2009 A I H C 1894, (2009) ILR (KANT) 378, (2009) 2 KANT LJ 444
Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
T IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 16?" DAY or DECEMBER, PRESENT ms HOWBLE MRJUSTICE S..R,__BAN'NU§fiA'§'§E T T 8t 1 THE i-iON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N;,VE:§~£U.GOPATL§§:'GC§i'$®A4.jé g_:gm'gMP'r 0:-' g_c_>_L_1R'r Ni)'.-4*': w.2o»9V3 BETWEEN: T SRINIVASA « S/O SR: K N THIMMAIAH -. Vv AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS . R,/AT NO 421, 3.5? MAIN: I MUNESHWARA BLQCK _ _ ' BANGALORE¥25._"=~--1;' _ V _ _ COMPLAINANT -(av sni; tn," E?AMACHs§§N!5:R.A_fl3TDV.) AND: : fl T _ V T I_Nm(2ti.'kRGE'«$ECRETARY ' BiiiAV:5.S'A.RI3\ KSHATRIYA CO--OPERATIVE (BY SRI". "s.:<. SAILESH, Auv. FOR amx L1r~z1Tr;'r':, "SAHAKARA SADANA" NQ63/6?, 2-:3" caoss, mm: ROAD BAN:;ALoRE+s3. T * ...ACCUSED _ '«_.M/sa TARAKARAM ASSOCIATES) H Ti'fIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIGNS 11 & 12 OF THE .,..£§ONTEMPT OF COURT ACT PRAYING TO TAKE ACTION OF THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED IN DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 2.5.2008
PASSED BY THE LEARNE!) ARBITRATOR IN DISPUTE NO. JRDIUBF/10664/05-O6.
THIS ccc comma ON FOR omens Thxsfifoihv, VENUGOPALA GOWDA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOW§fiiG:.f"~ .. « _ 23253., This contempt petitionhas hé--e_h"fiied "Se'_§:ti.on 12 of the Contempt of counsf§cs,, 19i71V,i,j(for 'the Act'), to take action / order dated 02.05.03 passeei 3o£htE'.'.j',_;'§s'gistrar of co. operative Soqistiss'--/ i:§_ep:;o:?t§'h1éh:tiéii."Aifhittator, in Dispute No.3RD/UBf~"]' piinish the accused.
2. fatts which have ted to the filing of this are as follows:
_;T§1e. coirripioihianti was admitted as an Associate Bhavasara Kshatriya Co-operative society 1;:-tn,isanigéiotreiitigsoss ('Society', for short) in the year 1991. _ He fepre-;sér.téd to the Society on 15.10.03 for regular ' Vifzsmhersihip, on which no action was taken. Consequentiy ,._he_V'fiio£i a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co- 'V ::fopérative Societies Act 1959 (for short, 'Societim Act') ''''with a prayer to direct the Society to admit him as 3 \ regular member. The said dispute which was.'refe'r"r'ed"'foVr adjudication, was contested by the Society Departmental Arbitrator has passed' en,A»1iard it ailowing the dispute in part and;""di%ectivno'the--.$ociety"t'o_VV admit the cornpiainant as a'bi'--e_jge_ier niember jfrornvtheljdatell' V of the Award. Aileging. that,,-thVe",_vsaid,,Award-hasfinot been complied with and thattheree__i§§wviifu'lI_disobedience by the accused, who isen infclharoe Sjecretaiwyoiillthe Society, this contempt petiti,on:hfes' » l Rarnachandra, iearned Advocaltelfor th.eicjonipie:'i"ne'nt, who contended that, the Arbitrator listnnds. same footing as that of a ,...,s'ubo'§'di:,;zate .Courte'n'd'vthe disobedience complained of fails r_'__w5th'in of Section 2(b) of the Act and hence, the power under Section 10 of the Act to id'-..«.,_"V..,take cognizance of the contempt aiieged against the and committed by him. He contended that, the it provisions contained in Section 109 of the Society Act is not efficacious, because of the procedure contemplated \}+'.
therein, which is required to be followed, there would be undue deiay in the matter of conclusion of the proceeding, which wouid defeat the very object of the passing the Award. He further contended that, that justice is being done to thev.corr:piainan:t,'ith»§"reh1ed.y'«"
provided under the Act, for the iof an order passed by the suhvordinate .Cou_rt,:Athe~petition"Vi' may be entertained and furtherection taken. against the accused as provided uintider the Act.
""" iearned counsel and perusing the record', the .sho;rtbi'poin't.that arises for our consideration is: 'I it A A whether,' for the disobedience of the "Ai¢iie,rvd:::p--essed by an Arbitrator in exercise of h ' i§o£irer'A',:u'nder Section 71 of the Karnataka Co- .r,)'p'ere'tive Societies Act, 1959, in a dispute flied " under Section 70 thereof, the contempt A petition under Section 10 nead with Section 12 of the Contempt Act is maintainabig/\? L5"!
5. As aireedy noticed, the dispute flied the compiainant under Section 70 of the Societies'_A!?§ot:"'VAnias disposed of by the Arbitrator under Se§;t__i'o'n:. Societies Act and an Award was" passed -:0t1:_': o;..opos*'.Voe;i directing the Society to admit the t;oi':npiainaht_ as 3 member. The compiainant a::efges tha't,_V_the".=saivdflorider /it Award has been wiifuiiyV_'_disob'eyed.u:"'Qh thevvcontrary, the iearned counsei for theiaciousjed' tontenfcfiethat, there is no wiifui disobed.ien§_e, iris:vieihi.'of«..thvej_'~fa§t:ithat, the aforesaid Award ha:s"f§~iing an appeal under Section 105;'V"off.,ti3e"'VSovc.ietE'es Act, in the Karnataka Appeiiate"--Tlriboh'ai, pending.
:,_._o4:Seh-Serztiorr(13) of Section mo of the Societies ' Act "r'eads hes' foiipws:
(1.3)'v'i:€~.V.A:;;1Y co-operative society or any (office ' ,.bVeerer) or empioyee or paid servant thereof no who felts to give effect to any decision or award under Section '71 inciuding order if any passed by the appropriate appeiiate authority, such decision or award not being a money decree, shaii if such faiiure is by,-
/,
(a) the Board, be punishabie with fine which may extend to five ._ thousand rupees, and it
(b) an (office bearer) or an empie§ee"V.'.i':'----
or a paid servant of suc.h_j'jVco'?.::
operative socIety",'AA'Vb'e « po.nisi:abi'aV V with imprisonment which mayextend to six rin:oAnths..
or with fine nihiciz _may five th-odsand ' "or with both'.
From a reading Aofithpe p'etit'§~ojn,f it is clear that, the c:o-§per5:mi'ios¢¢;a:§g, itsehivanaging Committee or its empioiyee,'-- feii_s'VAIto.i'ghre*«.effect to any decision or Award not Avbeinga' nfioney passed under Section 71 of the Act_:'ira.c!udi.ng antirdver if any passed by the appropriate Appeaiate .a..;:i,.mw, shali be liable to be punished with in1.pVrison.njie.::'t or fine or both.
~ Thus, it is clear that, the Societies Act itself iproviides for a just procedure and remedy in case of faiiure it "to give effect to any decision or award other than being a money decree, by way of imposition of punishment. It is Qt \/ trite that, if the Act provides for a thlng to be done in a particular manner, then, it has to be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. Sub-Section (13) of of the Societies Act enables to punish management or the employee,:-Ifor--~dlsolhedlencel' .1 order or Award «other than a mo'ftey7'.Ad'ecree~ Section 71. Such powerb~.h"as_% been__ thee' Legislature with an object thet~,V..t,he"order orfillwaiird passed thereunder is obeyed and_'if"i:ré.~Va:}:h.tedV,fsh'o.u:d be dealt with in th9dvi'**3!3u.FV.1:'='--l'£;l'€?:'fi¢€§l'fivhdemhe Societies Act itself. The powevr*._ttnder' "with Section 12 of the Act, is not intended vtolllsuer-_.u*ce'¥:ie the mode of obtaining retief as provided _undei"'«E+2u_b.-vxsection (13) of Section 169 of the ' .:S'ocleti_es or to deny the defences legitimately open in "sucth action 1
8.'. In the case of K. 3AGDISH PONRAJ 8: OTHERS Vs. 'A.V_VA.§?l'UNIRA]U 31 OTHERS in ccc No.114/o7(cIv1L), .:disposed of en 04.12.08, the facts were that, the complainants as plaintiffs had obtained an order of E2 temporary injunction under Order 39 Ruies 1 and ZECPC in a Civii Court. They aiieged disobedience of by the accused. Without invoking the Civii Court provided under RaiseEA'the4reoi,--A.:ai'.conternpt 7 V petition was filed in this Court u:ndei<._Secti.o.:_:s'A' '15 the Act. Considering th'e:"objections'-taisedmto the maintainability of the~..V_conten3pt'joetition, in view of the provision made in 0rdeii"39'i'ji£i.:ie it was heid as follows:
rei_ates'i'vto..tho con's.eq.uence of disobedience or ioreach The remedy available in caVse,of-dVis-obediiience or breach of injunction is it providedV«.the;fMein itself, which in our view, has _ . got:-en'~«irnade"'to provide a speedy inexpensive V at :§3n:d'v4éffe'ctive forum and to avoid muitipiicity of % iitiosjtiion before different forums. The . i;,eg'isiative policies and intendment should . necessariiy weigh with us in giving meaningfui interpretation to the provision. we do not find any extraordinary case having been made out by the complainants, who are insisting for ' initiation and prosecution of the Kioceedings under the Act, than by availing the remedy provided under the Code. From the said perspective, taking into consideration the remedy provided under the Code, the complaint fiied under the Act, for taking actiVon_7..V for breach or disobedience of an temporary injunction made or subordinate Court, is not penn_issibie;"'*~iri.our", L. view, when the subordinate :co'ujjrt"--,it's§eif. 'hasi,,_"'.,,J' been sufficientiy empowered..t'o._deai it situation, where ther.e*~.,is d'ieobeciience'""er': breach of the injunctiodorder granted it, the same Vib:e_i.ia'pproached for freIl_e'f3and .t_o'.,see,:'that_ its orders are honoured and 4. g5iven='V'jpjeffeciiflto rather than seeking. punishreent-__oh.d'e::.'Section 12 of the Act. vThe on hand is not much different. If the Tqr,i{ianaging Committee or any of its employees eiissio to the decision or Award, is iiabie to be punishved imposition of fine or imprisonment or both. it chi-i.ehceV,"in our considered view, the contempt petition under 'detection 12 of the Act is not maintainabie and the "compiainant in the ordinary circumstances has to have