N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 23rd April, 2001 in Dispute No. 305 of 2000-2001 on the file of the first respondent and the order dated 19th July, 2003 in Appeal no. 622 of 2001 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, bangalore, has presented the instant writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has availed a loan for a sum of Rs. 13,000/- from the second respondent-Sahakara Sangha for digging a bore-well. The respondents 3 and 4 had stood as sureties for the said amount. The said loan was sanctioned by the second respondent on 29th June, 1990 repayable in ten half yearly instalments and the final instalment was repayable during June 1995. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he had paid a sum of Rs. 12,900/- on various dates and has failed to keep up the payment of instalment as per the agreement. In view of non-payment of the instalment as agreed, the second respondent has raised a dispute before the first respondent under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act. Accordingly, the first respondent has referred the matter to the Arbitrator for consideration The Arbitrator, after conducting the proceedings as envisaged under the mandatory provisions of the Act, has passed the award for a sum of Rs. 25,150/- with future interest at the rate of 17% per annum on the principle amount of Rs. 13,000/- from 21st november, 2000. Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the arbitrator dated 23rd April, 2001, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 622 of 2001. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, and the three specific contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has dismissed the appeal, confirming the award passed by the Arbitrator. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by both the authorities, the petitioner felt necessitated to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner for considerable length of time and the learned Government Pleader appearing for first respondent. Other respondents are served and unrepresented. ( 5 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the dispute is barred by limitation. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner for considerable length of time and the learned Government Pleader appearing for first respondent. Other respondents are served and unrepresented. ( 5 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the dispute is barred by limitation. Secondly, he submitted that the award passed by the Arbitrator is arbitrary for non-compliance of principles of natural justice Thirdly, he contended that, the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to award future interest of more than 06 per cent Without considering these three specific contentions, the Tribunal has proceeded to pass the order dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the arbitrator. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the Arbitrator has proceeded to pass a unilateral order without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and if opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner, the petitioner might have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the dispute raised by the first respondent before the arbitrator. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by both the authorities below are contrary to the material on record and not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Hence, they are liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) PER contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for first respondent, inter alia, contended and substantiated the order passed by both the authorities below. Further, he pointed out that all the three specific contentions urged by the petitioner before the Appellate authority have been considered in detail and a finding has been recorded not accepting the said contentions taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also submitted that, in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities below, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Further, he submitted that, the conduct of the petitioner is not proper and acceptable especially in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court on 8th October, 2003. The petitioner has not complied with the condition imposed by this Court while granting the said interim order. Nor has produced any authenticated document to show that the order passed by this Court on 8th October, 2003 is complied with nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to set aside the order passed by both the authorities below. The petitioner has not complied with the condition imposed by this Court while granting the said interim order. Nor has produced any authenticated document to show that the order passed by this Court on 8th October, 2003 is complied with nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to set aside the order passed by both the authorities below. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed in limine. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the parties for considerable length of time and after considering the contentions urged by both the Counsels referred above, the only question that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to whether the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are sustainable in law and on facts? ( 8 ) AFTER careful perusal of the order passed by both the authorities, it is manifest on the face of orders that, the authorities have not committed any error of law, much less any irregularity in passing the impugned orders. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner has availed the loan for digging the bore-well from the second respondent and has failed to pay the necessary instalment. In view of non-payment of instalments, the second respondent was constrained to raise a dispute before the first respondent and the first respondent in turn has referred the matter to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has issued the notice to the petitioner to appear before him on 23rd January, 2004. The petitioner has appeared on that date and requested for adjournment. Thereafter, he remained absent and has not filed any objection. The Arbitrator has proceeded with the matter in accordance with law after considering the documentary evidence made available by the second respondent through their secretary. After evaluation of the records made available by the secretary of the second respondent, the Arbitrator has passed the impugned award. Assailing the said award passed by the Arbitrator, the petitioner has filed the appeal on the file of the Karnataka Appellate tribunal, Bangalore. Before this Court and before the Appellate tribunal, the petitioner has taken three specific contentions referred above. All the three contentions urged by the petitioner have been answered by the Appellate Tribunal and the same have been rejected giving specific finding at paragraphs 9 to 11. Before this Court and before the Appellate tribunal, the petitioner has taken three specific contentions referred above. All the three contentions urged by the petitioner have been answered by the Appellate Tribunal and the same have been rejected giving specific finding at paragraphs 9 to 11. So far as the first contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the dispute is barred by limitation, the Tribunal has given a specific finding that, the loan has been sanctioned on 29th June, 1990 and the first instalment was due on 29th December, 1990 and the final instalment was due on 26th June, 1995 and as per the original Lower Court records at page 1, it is seen that a sum of Rs. 500/- has been deposited by the petitioner before the second respondent on 9th March, 2000 and the , dispute is filed in the year 2000. Therefore, the Tribunal has given a specific finding that the dispute is within the limitation of six years since the cause of action arose only on 26th June, 1995 which was the due date for payment of final instalment. So far as the second contention regarding non-compliance of the principles of natural justice is concerned, the Tribunal has given a specific finding that notice has been served on the petitioner and he himself appeared on 23rd April, 2001 before the Arbitrator and requested for adjournment. As per the lower court records at page 7, it is seen that, notice has been served on the petitioner and two others and the same was accepted. In spite of service of notice, the petitioner has failed to utilise the opportunity afforded to him. Therefore, the requirement of natural justice has been fully complied with. So far as the third contention that the Arbitrator ought to have awarded the interest at 06 per cent since the loan is taken for agricultural purpose, the said contention taken by the petitioner has been negatived stating that there is no substance in the said contention. It is significant to note that, in the instant case as stated supra, the petitioner has availed the loan for digging a bore-well and not for agricultural improvements. It is significant to note that, in the instant case as stated supra, the petitioner has availed the loan for digging a bore-well and not for agricultural improvements. As per the agreement, the interest has been charged and I do not find any error of law as such committed by both the authorities in rejecting the contentions taken by the petitioner's Counsel before this Court and Appellate Tribunal. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities, as enumerated above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order passed by both the authorities nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, having regard to the status of the petitioner and the purpose for which the loan has been availed and the hardship caused to the petitioner, I am of the view that, it is just and proper to give some reasonable instalments to the petitioner to enable him to repay the loan as per the award passed by the Arbitrator. Further, the petitioner is granted four equal instalments for payment of the amount due to the second respondent with an interval of three months between each instalment and also directed to pay the first instalment of 25% of the amount due to the second respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If in case the petitioner fails to pay the first instalment of 25% as directed above within the stipulated period, it is open for the second respondent to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. However, it is needless to state that, it is open for the petitioner to give an application/representation to the second respondent-Sahakara Sangha for reducing the rate of interest and if in case the petitioner files such application for reducing the rate of interest, the second respondent is directed to consider the same taking into consideration the existing regulation and norms prescribed by the reserve Bank of India and also if any concession is shown to other borrowers who have availed the loan from the said Sahakara Sangha. --- *** --- .