Judgment :- A member in default admits liability and request the society to proceed against the security, realize the dues and pay back the balance. Will the member cease to be in default in such circumstances? 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibits P6 and P8 orders. The issue relates to proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rule 44 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. As per Exhibit P6 the second respondent Director found that the petitioner is in default. In Exhibit P7 appeal the Government confirmed the findings and rejected the appeal. 3. The petitioner is a member of the Board of Directors of Trivandrum Regional Cooperative Marketing Producers Union Ltd. and he is presently the Chairman. The third respondent brought to the notice of the second respondent as per Exhibit P1 that the petitioner is in default to the tune of Rs.29,92,000-00 with the fourth respondent District Cooperative Bank and that an arbitration case is also pending. The petitioner does not dispute the liability. His contention is that he cannot be treated to be in default since he had given Exhibit P3 request to the Trivandrum District Cooperative Bank to take over the unit in respect of which the loan had been availed, realise the dues and pay the balance to the petitioner and two others who are the partners of the firm, Josgo Tiles and Clay Products, who had availed the loan. The contention is having given such a letter, it cannot be said that the petitioner is in default. It is also not in dispute that A.R.C.No.22 of 1996 is pending in the matter in which the petitioner is one of the defendants. 4. As directed by the Court, a statement has been filed on behalf of the District Cooperative Bank in respect of whom the petitioner is said to be in default. The statement which is a self-explanatory, reads as follows. "The loan was taken by Josgo Tile and Clay Products, Parassala, a Partnership Firm. Y.John, K.Surendran Nair, R.Manoharan Nair are the partners of the Company. The company availed a term loan of Rs.29.95 lakh from the Parassala Branch of the Trivandrum District Cooperative Bank Ltd. The Kerala State Cooperative Bank Ltd. has scrutinised and sanctioned the term loan to the firm and the same was disbursed through our Parassala Branch as agency loan. Y.John, K.Surendran Nair, R.Manoharan Nair are the partners of the Company. The company availed a term loan of Rs.29.95 lakh from the Parassala Branch of the Trivandrum District Cooperative Bank Ltd. The Kerala State Cooperative Bank Ltd. has scrutinised and sanctioned the term loan to the firm and the same was disbursed through our Parassala Branch as agency loan. The Partners executed pronote, guarantee bond and deposited the original documents to the security property with the Neyyattinkara Branch of Trivandrum District Cooperative Bank. The properties of the 3 partners are included in the Memorandum of deposit of title deed executed by the partners. They jointly executed all the documents relating to the said term loan. They did not act according to the term and condition of the loan agreement and the term loan became over due. Several notices were issued to them from the Branch regarding the dues of the loan. At last on 22.1.1993 a detailed registered notice was issued to the partners. In that notice details of arrears in principal interest, additional interest, guarantee fee, insurance premium etc. were given. It was a final notice and an intimation that the bank will take arbitration proceedings against the partners. The copy of the notice was accepted by all the partners and the Bank has received the acknowledgment duly signed by the partner. The Bank filed arbitration suit against the partners for recovering loan amount. In the course of the arbitration case the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance Anti Corruption Bureau, Kollam, has taken away the entire case files in connection with the Vigilance case registered since the security/property pledged to the Bank was sold without obtaining legal permission from the Bank. Now the arbitration case is pending before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Trivandrum." The factual position is being what is stated above it cannot be said that the petitioner is not in default. 5. Now the arbitration case is pending before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Trivandrum." The factual position is being what is stated above it cannot be said that the petitioner is not in default. 5. Rule 2(d) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules defines “default” as follows: "(d) "Default" means failure on the part of any person, to repay to the financing bank or to any other society a loan or any other amount due to it within the time fixed for repayment or to return to the society within the time fixed the finished goods in respect of raw materials advanced or to keep any other obligation for the fulfillment of which a time limit has been specified in the bye-laws." The contention of the petitioner is that since he had already offered as per Exhibit P3, he cannot be said to be in default. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court reported in Kora Kurian v. Dr.Registrar of Co-op. Societies & others (1981 KLT 868). That is a case where the writ petitioner therein owned an amount of Rs.780/- to the Bank. But at the same time, the Bank owed an amount of Rs.1,300/- to the said petitioner and the petitioner had requested for set off before the due date. In such circumstances, it was held that a person cannot be said to be in default. The relevant portion reads as follows: "It was incumbent upon the Ist respondent to decide with reference to the facts and on the circumstances as to whether the petitioner was in default or not in respect of the borrowing of Rs.780/- by him. In that respect it was also necessary for the Ist respondent to consider the question as to whether the petitioner's case that the sum of Rs.1,300/- and another sum of Rs.1,509.56 were due to him from the 2nd respondent society to whom the petitioner owed the sum of Rs.780. it was also necessary to consider the question whether the petitioner was entitled to treat the loan as wiped off as on 15th February 1977 when he to whom the larger amount according to him, was due from the society made a request to adjust the lesser amount due by him to the society. it was also necessary to consider the question whether the petitioner was entitled to treat the loan as wiped off as on 15th February 1977 when he to whom the larger amount according to him, was due from the society made a request to adjust the lesser amount due by him to the society. The 2nd respondent society was bound to adjust the claim unless the 2nd respondent society had some other claims in respect of the sum of Rs.1,300 deposited by the petitioner on 20th May 1974 By refusing to do so for whatever reason this may be the 2nd respondent society cannot seek to recover the sum of Rs.780 from him and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner was in default in respect of the said amount at any time after 15th February, 1997." If at all the District Cooperative Bank is to act on Exhibit P3 letter, it can be done only by taking recourse to Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. Apparently, the said procedure has been set in motion by instituting A.R.C.No.22 of 1996 and the same is admittedly pending. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not in a default ever since 1993, under the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and Rules. As per Rule 44(1)(c ), no person is eligible to be a member of the committee of a Society in case he is in default to any society. Evidently, the petitioner is in default. May be he is not a defaulter. For attracting the disqualification under Rule 44(1)(c) of the Rules, a member need only be in default. In Kora Kurian's case (Supra) the society owed a certain amount to the member before the member was in default and the member had requested a set off. No adjudication under Section 69 of the Act was necessary in such circumstances. I do not find any merit in the Original Petition and hence the same is dismissed.