Judgment : Both these cases being connected, they are disposed of by a common Judgment. 2. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No.19119/07 is the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash Exts.P9 and P10, to declare that the second respondent is not liable to pay any amount to the first respondent, and to direct the second respondent not to pay any amount to the first respondent by way of complying with the directions of the Tribunal in Ext.P9. Ext.P9 is a Judgment passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruivananthapuram, allowing the Appeal filed by the First respondent and passing an Award against the second respondent and allowing the money claims raised by the first respondent against the second respondent Ext.P10 is a consequential decision taken by the Administrator-In-Charge of the second respondent to the Secretary of the second respondent to comply with the directions contained in Ext.P9. 3. Petitioners in W.P.(C).No.20065/07 also challenge the very same decision of the Co-operative Tribunal which is marked as Ext.P5. 4. I shall refer to the case as pleaded in W.P.(C).No.19119/07: The petitioner is a Central Society. The second respondent is the Elamgulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the second respondent). According to petitioner, the petitioner is a Central Society with Primary Societies as its Members and the second respondent is such a Member affiliated to the petitioner. There was large scale swindling of the depositors’ fund deposited in the second respondent. The elected Committee came to be superseded and an Administrator was appointed. In order to meet the demands of the depositors for repayment, the petitioner Bank had made substantial advance to the second respondent. It is stated that an amount of Rs.24 Crores is outstanding, and an employee of the petitioner Bank is appointed as Secretary of the second respondent with the consent of the Registrar. It is stated that there was a Vigilance Enquiry against the previous Managing Committee and some employees for misappropriation. It is the case of the petitioner that though the first respondent had accounts with the second respondent that had been closed. However, the first respondent filed Ext.P1 Arbitration Case, claiming Rs.40,80,000/= with interest. The Arbitrator rejected the claim. Thereupon, an Appeal was filed as Ext.P2. It is the case of the petitioner that though the first respondent had accounts with the second respondent that had been closed. However, the first respondent filed Ext.P1 Arbitration Case, claiming Rs.40,80,000/= with interest. The Arbitrator rejected the claim. Thereupon, an Appeal was filed as Ext.P2. The Appeal came to be allowed by the Tribunal vide Ext.P3 Judgment, which in turn was challenged by the second respondent before this Court. The Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, against which Writ Appeal No.1260/03 was carried by the second respondent, It is stated that thereafter the petitioner was compelled to file an Application to get the petitioner Bank impleaded and that it was impleaded. It is stated that the Appeal was heard after impleading and by Ext.P4 Judgment, the Division Bench found that the matter requires re-consideration by the Tribunal. Petitioner Bank had filed a Writ Petition for directing the Tribunal to pass orders on the impleading application filed by the petitioner Bank. The Tribunal allowed the application to implead. Thereafter, petitioner filed Ext.P8 Written Statement. It is thereafter that the Tribunal has proceeded to pass Ext.P9 Judgment, allowing the claim raised by the first respondent, as already noted. 5. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.20065/07 are stated to be Members of the Elamgulam Service Cooperative Bank. According to them, the Administrator appointed for the Bank has not taken any steps to challenge the order of the Tribunal by which the Service Co-operative Bank has been directed to pay the sum under the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 6. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. .7. The claim raised by the first respondent was originally allowed by the Tribunal. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to briefly consider the case of the first respondent before the Arbitrator. It is, briefly, set up as hereunder: .The first respondent had made Fixed Deposits of an amount of Rs. 80,000/= on 111.1996 and a further sum of Rs.40,00,000/= on 29.3.1997 with the second respondent. The first respondent was having loan transaction with the Lord Krishna Bank, Kottayam. For discharging the liability to the Lord Krishna Bank, he surrendered with the said Bank the Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.40 Lakhs on 28.1997 with proper discharge endorsements thereon and with the request letter for forwarding it to the second respondent for collection. The first respondent was having loan transaction with the Lord Krishna Bank, Kottayam. For discharging the liability to the Lord Krishna Bank, he surrendered with the said Bank the Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.40 Lakhs on 28.1997 with proper discharge endorsements thereon and with the request letter for forwarding it to the second respondent for collection. Despite presentation of the FD Receipt, the second respondent did not make payment, but kept on requesting for time to make the payment Since the Lord Krishna Bank, Kottayam could not realize the amount, the Lord Krishna Bank returned the FD Receipt to the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent surrendered the Receipts with the second respondent for clearing payment, but the second respondent kept, taking time for payment of the amounts on the pretext that certain internal audit works were to be completed. In the meantime, and Administrator had to be appointed, in view of the grave allegation of financial irregularities and mismanagement. When the first respondent made enquiries, it was realized that the amounts due to him were unauthorisedly set off against the loan transaction of some third parties without his knowledge and consent. He made request for a Certificate. He came to know that the amounts were adjusted against the loan accounts due from respondents 3 to 6. According to him, he had not made any request for or availed any loan amount from the second respondent. It was for the sake of convenience, as Lord Krishna Bank did not have any Branch at Ponkunnam for availing the loan from the loan account of the Lord Krishna Bank, that the amounts there, were credited to the account of the first respondent with the second respondent. It is stated that the amounts due to the first respondent were illegally adjusted by the second respondent. It is on these allegations that the first respondent lodged the claim. .8. Respondents 3 to 6 in this Writ Petition who were defendants 2 to 5 in the Arbitration Case, filed a joint Written Statement. They contended, inter alia, as follows: .They have got 40 cents of land and a building therein, having an extent of 9000 Sq. Ft. at Ponkunnam town. They were conducting business. The first respondent was constructing a commercial building in the same town. He purchased building materials from them on credit. An amount of Rs.1,25,826/= was due to them from him. Ft. at Ponkunnam town. They were conducting business. The first respondent was constructing a commercial building in the same town. He purchased building materials from them on credit. An amount of Rs.1,25,826/= was due to them from him. They had availed cash credit loan from the second respondent. The first respondent was a close friend of the third respondent. He was aware of the loan availed by them. There was some scuffle in 1997 in the functioning of the second respondent. An Administrator took charge. First respondent apprehended that the second respondent may face liquidation. He approached the third respondent to offer to purchase the property and building belonging to them. There were negotiations and they agreed to sell the property and building to the first respondent for a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/=. There was an oral agreement entered into on 19.1997 for the sale of the property, within one year. First respondent told that he has got money in the second respondent Bank and the loan transaction of respondents 3 to 6 would be closed by paying the amount, and that could be treated as an advance in the purchase price. Respondents agreed to the said course suggested by the first respondent due to the pressure of one of the mediators, namely Shri K.J. Thomas, Ex MLA. They met the Bank Authorities and expressed their intention. Then, the Secretary did not accept the said course. However, by exerting pressure from top level, the Secretary agreed to the said course. Thus, an amount of Rs.29,72,345/= was paid on 10.1997 from the Fixed Deposit Amount of the first respondent to the cash credit loan account of respondents 3 to 6. Another amount of Rs. 13,20,747/= was paid to the cash credit loan account of the first respondent himself. According to them, from Rs.29,71,836/= an amount of Rs.1,26,826/= was to be deducted as the amount due from the first respondent. According to them, the adjustment was made with the consent of the first respondent and in the presence of the first respondent. It is stated that they were willing to execute the sale deed for the performance of the oral agreement. 9. The Secretary of the second respondent Bank also filed a Statement essentially on the same lines. There is reference to a cash credit loan account No.231 availed by the first respondent. It is stated that they were willing to execute the sale deed for the performance of the oral agreement. 9. The Secretary of the second respondent Bank also filed a Statement essentially on the same lines. There is reference to a cash credit loan account No.231 availed by the first respondent. It is stated that an amount of Rs.13,20,747/= was outstanding in that account as on 10.1997. It is their case that the FD Receipt sent through the Lord Krishna Bank was returned as the first respondent had huge outstanding in his loan account with the second respondent Bank. Thereafter, the first respondent approached the second respondent with the third respondent and requested to adjust the amount, on the basis of the real estate transaction. 10. The first respondent filed a Replication, inter alia, contending that he had not availed any loan or cash credit from the second respondent. He denied the case set up by respondents 3 to 6 that there was a contract for sale of the property. The Arbitrator did not find favour with the case of the first respondent. The Tribunal by Ext.P3, however, proceeded to allow the Appeal. The Division Bench of this Court, however, proceeded to interfere with Ext.P3 Award passed by the Tribunal. In the course of the finding, the Court held as follows: “The fact that petitioner has deposited the amount after withdrawing the amount from Vijaya Bank is not disputed. It is also an admitted case that at the time of arbitration, most of the documents were not available, With regard to the cheque for Rs.13,20,247/=, now cheques were found out. Cheques were shown to us as well as counsel for the first respondent. Records taken by the Vigilance was also produced by the Government Pleader. First respondent was allowed to peruse the documents. According to the first respondent, those cheques were issued not for the loan account maintained in the bank, but, to pay off the transferred loan of Vijaya Bank. Considering the question involved and considering the fact that the documents are available now, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for proper appreciation of the matter. Fixed Deposit by the first respondent is not disputed. Considering the question involved and considering the fact that the documents are available now, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for proper appreciation of the matter. Fixed Deposit by the first respondent is not disputed. But, whether it was adjusted at the request of the first respondent and whether at least Rs.13,20,747/= the cheque was adjusted towards the loan account of the first respondent and other questions raised in the writ petition can be looked into by a fact finding authority. In the above circumstances, we set aside judgment of the learned single Judge and Ext.P7 Judgment of the Co-operative Tribunal and remand the matter. Both parties are allowed to file documentary evidence and adduce evidence before the Co-operative Tribunal and the Tribunal may pass fresh orders with notice to the parties as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.” 11. Shri George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order of the Tribunal is illegal. According to him, it is issued on a total misreading of the evidence on record. The Tribunal did not consider the documentary evidence, it is submitted. It is pointed out by him that the first respondent had addressed Ext.P5 dated 16.5.1998 to the Administrator of the second respondent Bank. Therein, the first respondent has stated as follows: Malayalam He would submit that Ext.P6 dated 27.5.1998 was issued by the first respondent to the administrator of the second respondent Bank. Therein, it was stated as follows: Malayalam He then referred me to Ext.P7 Certificate issued by the second respondent on 6.1998. Therein, it is certified that the Fixed Deposits of Rs. 40 Lakhs dated 29.3.1997 and Rs.80,000/= dated 111.1996 by the first respondent were transferred and set off to the various loan accounts shown therein as per his request dated 10.1997. An amount of Rs.13,20,747/= is seen set off against the cash credit account No.231 of the first respondent himself. Further amounts are shown as set off against the cash credit accounts and O.F.5125 of respondents 3 to 6. Thus, the total amount shown as set off is Rs.42,93,092/=. It is finally stated in Ext.P7 Certificate by the second respondent that the Certificate was issued for the purpose of producing before the Income Tax Authority. Further amounts are shown as set off against the cash credit accounts and O.F.5125 of respondents 3 to 6. Thus, the total amount shown as set off is Rs.42,93,092/=. It is finally stated in Ext.P7 Certificate by the second respondent that the Certificate was issued for the purpose of producing before the Income Tax Authority. Shri George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the FD Receipts were handed over to the Lord Krishna Bank in the year 1997 and he would contend that the evidence would show that the first respondent was aware that the amounts due to him were set off some time in 1997 itself. He pointed out that the Arbitration Case itself was filed after a long delay, thus again probabilising the fact that the first respondent consented to set off the amounts due to him. .12. It is, therefore, contended by Shri George Poonthottam that going by the first respondent’s own showing, the amounts claimed by him had been set off and these documents were not considered by the Tribunal. Petitioner would rely on Ext.P11 ledger maintained by the first respondent with the second respondent. It is his case that as on 10.4.1996, an amount of Rs.1,99,979.29 was the balance outstanding. It is stated that an amount of Rs.4,50,100/= was transferred from the C.C. Account No.231 of the first respondent and the amount in the S.B. Account thereafter was Rs.6,50,079.29. The first respondent issued cheque for Rs.6,50,000/= in favour of one Shri Prasanth Krishnan on 10.4.1996 as per Cheque No.71763 and these facts were also available from Exts.B25 and B25A. He refers to various other transactions at the instance of the first respondent. Ext.P12 is produced as the Statement of Cash Credit Account No.1276 of the first respondent issued by the Lord Krishna Bank, Kottayam Branch. Ext.P13 is produced which was produced as Ext.B23 before the Arbitrator was also relied on by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner points out that an amount of Rs.3,553/= was given as cheque to the New India Insurance Company and an amount of Rs.1,163/= was given towards Agricultural Income Tax. Ext.P14 is produced as the Argument Note, which, according to petitioner, did not receive any consideration. It is pointed out that there is no .consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Ext.P15 is the Replication filed by the first respondent. 13. Ext.P14 is produced as the Argument Note, which, according to petitioner, did not receive any consideration. It is pointed out that there is no .consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Ext.P15 is the Replication filed by the first respondent. 13. The first respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit, denying the allegations. It is stated that the matter was fully considered by the Tribunal after remand. Ext.R1(a) is the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. 14. It is contended by the petitioner that it is clear that the first respondent had indeed availed loan from the second respondent and he had availed the benefit of the loan. Petitioner would submit that there was clear evidence including the testimony of the first respondent. It would clearly show that the first respondent had availed loan from the second respondent and there were huge amounts outstanding and the findings of the Tribunal require to be interfered with. Shri T. Krishnanunni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other Writ Petition also contended that the order of the Tribunal requires to be interfered with. 15. Shri Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, contended that this Court is being called upon to interfere with the Judgment of the Tribunal in the exercise of the powers of judicial review and absolutely no ground exists in this case to do so. He would point out that this is a case where the first respondent had admittedly made deposits and the only case set up by the petitioner Bank and the other defendants was a case of set off of the amounts due under the Fixed Deposit under the two heads, namely that there was real estate transaction between the first respondent and respondents 3 to 6 and the first respondent had availed loan from the second respondent and the amounts remained outstanding therein and it was set off. He would submit that as regards the first ground, it is clear that there was no acceptable material, which would show that there was any contract between the first respondent and respondents 3 to 6. He points out that Shri K.J. Thomas, the alleged mediator at whose instance the alleged agreement was entered into, was not even examined. What was involved is the appreciation of the oral evidence. Admittedly, there is no document. He points out that Shri K.J. Thomas, the alleged mediator at whose instance the alleged agreement was entered into, was not even examined. What was involved is the appreciation of the oral evidence. Admittedly, there is no document. In such a situation, the Appellate Tribunal has appreciated the evidence and come to the conclusion that the defendants have not proved their case, he contends. It is not open to this Court to interfere with the award in the exercise of the powers of judicial review. He would submit that, in fact, the first respondent was a victim. As regards the second point, he would submit that this is a case where the first respondent had availed loan from Lord Krishna Bank and only for convenience sake, as the Lord Krishna Bank did not have Branch at Ponkunnam the amount disbursed by the Lord Krishna Bank as loan was routed through the second respondent. He reiterated that as correctly found by the Tribunal, the first respondent had not availed any loan facility from the second respondent and, therefore, the question of any adjustment was clearly baseless. He also cited certain decisions in support of his contentions: 16. In Indian Overseas Bank V. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers’ Union and another ((2000) 4 SCC 245), the Apex Court held that interference under Article 226 with pure findings of fact and re-appreciation of evidence was impermissible. It was held that insufficiency of evidence or the fact that another view was possible, was not a ground to interfere with the findings of an Industrial Tribunal. It was held that the Writ Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction under Article 226. He would further submit that the second respondent, which has been directed to pay the amount, has not challenged the award and it is not open to the writ petitioners in these cases to challenge the award. .17. The Tribunal found that there was absolutely no evidence to show that there was any agreement for sale of any property between the first respondent and third respondent. It noted that Shri K.J. Thomas, Ex MLA, was not examined. The fact that there was no documentation of the agreement even though the amount of consideration was huge, apparently had weighed with the Tribunal. It noted that Shri K.J. Thomas, Ex MLA, was not examined. The fact that there was no documentation of the agreement even though the amount of consideration was huge, apparently had weighed with the Tribunal. I do not think that the petitioners have made out a case under Article 226 to interfere with the finding that the case of real estate transaction is unbelievable is liable to be interfered. Absolutely, no ground .exists to find that the finding that the oral agreement pleaded by respondents 3 to 6 is not proved, is in any way perverse or without considering the evidence on record. Therefore, I confirm the finding of the Tribunal that the defendants have failed to prove that there was an agreement by the first respondent to purchase the property of the third respondent. 18. The Tribunal found that the first respondent was able to explain the context in which he gave Exts.P5 and P6 requests. It is found by the Tribunal that Exts.P5 and P6 would go to show that he was not aware of the adjustments and the names as the amounts were unknown to him. It is found that it is unbelievable that a person would have consented for such an agreement without knowing the exact amount to be adjusted in such a situation. It is found by the Tribunal that it is only natural that a person, who happened to know from the Bank employees that too unofficially, that the with F.D. amounts were illegally adjusted towards the loan account of third parties, will make every endeavour to get an official clarification of such adjustments so as to enable him to take appropriate action in this regard. It is further found that the first respondent wanted to know the correct details officially before taking any action and for that purpose, he showed the willingness in the letters in the manner required by the second respondent. It is stated that upon Ext.P7 Certificate being given dated 6.1998, on 26.1998, the first respondent issued legal notice demanding the money. The Tribunal has, therefore, elaborately considered and given a finding regarding the explanation of the first respondent to Exts.P5 and P6 and found that no inference of consent can be drawn from those documents. 19. It is stated that upon Ext.P7 Certificate being given dated 6.1998, on 26.1998, the first respondent issued legal notice demanding the money. The Tribunal has, therefore, elaborately considered and given a finding regarding the explanation of the first respondent to Exts.P5 and P6 and found that no inference of consent can be drawn from those documents. 19. The Tribunal has dealt with Ext.P7 Certificate (marked as Ext.B6 before the Arbitrator) in regard to the amount of Rs.13,20,747/= said to be adjusted against the alleged cash credit account No.231 of the first respondent. Thereafter, the Tribunal has noted from the proved Affidavit of DW2 that they have produced 134 cheques of the first respondent to prove the withdrawal of a total sum of Rs.32,07,307/= under the Account. On the said basis, it is found by the Tribunal that the first respondent has withdrawn only a lesser amount than what was actually transferred from Lord Krishna Bank. It is found that no amount is due from the first respondent under the transaction and there must be some evidence to show that the plaintiff applied for a loan. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to examine Account No.183 (Ext.B10) and the Bill Discount Register (Ext.B19). The case of the first respondent is that they are the manipulations and fabrications of the second respondent. It is noted by the Tribunal that there were no pleadings regarding these Accounts in the Written Statement by the sixth defendant, namely the Secretary of the second respondent. It is found by the Tribunal that though DW2 in his Affidavit has averred that the first respondent was operating Ext.B10 Account for a pretty long time, a perusal of Ext.B10 Ledger would show that it was opened only on 7.2.1996 and closed on 26.3.1996. It is found that on 10.2.1996 and on 12.1996, a sum of Rs. 2,91,348/= is seen credited in the Account by transferring three F.D. Account amounts of the first respondent. It is stated that Exts. B13, B14 and B15 are the only cheques produced from the side of the defendants to prove that the first respondent has withdrawn amounts from this Account. The total amount said to be withdrawn as per the three cheques came to Rs.1,52,500/= whereas the F.D. Account credited came to Rs.2,91,348/= and that is less than the first respondent’s own money. B13, B14 and B15 are the only cheques produced from the side of the defendants to prove that the first respondent has withdrawn amounts from this Account. The total amount said to be withdrawn as per the three cheques came to Rs.1,52,500/= whereas the F.D. Account credited came to Rs.2,91,348/= and that is less than the first respondent’s own money. It is found that there is nothing produced to show that the first respondent has applied for opening such a loan account. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to consider Ext.B19, which is alleged to be the Bill Discount Register. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the evidence of DW2, wherein DW2 has stated, inter alia, that the bill discounting facility was sanctioned to the first respondent. He deposed that for starting the Bill Discounting Account, there must be a SB Account, there must be sufficient security furnished, there must be an application seeking such facility and agreement DW2 further has deposed that no document has come to his knowledge evidencing that the first respondent applied, given security or executed agreement. It is further deposed by him that if there were such documents, it could have been produced. The Tribunal proceeded to find that the second respondent has failed to prove that the claim that the first respondent had availed any such facility. The Tribunal thereafter, referred to the decision in Tilendra Nath Mahanta V. United Bank of India (2002 (1) KLT SN Page 38 – Case No.45) for the proposition that Fixed Deposits are basically loan in the hands of the Bankers and there cannot be any adjustment on the basis of the lien. It was following the said decision that the Tribunal has held that the Bank cannot suo motu set off of the F.D. amounts against one loan account by exercising the right of lien and it can be done only with the consent of the party. It is further found in respect of the set off pleaded in respect of Exts.B10, B19 and B23, there was absolutely no consent of the first respondent. 20. It is pointed out by the petitioner Bank that there are clear evidence to show that a loan was sanctioned to the first respondent at his request. They referred to the Resolution of the Bank, which was produced before the Tribunal. 20. It is pointed out by the petitioner Bank that there are clear evidence to show that a loan was sanctioned to the first respondent at his request. They referred to the Resolution of the Bank, which was produced before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner Bank also referred to the application submitted by the first respondent seeking loan. Learned counsel for the first respondent would point out that the said application which is referred to by the petitioner is not even seen signed by the first respondent. Counsel for petitioner would point out that a perusal of the Accounts along with the oral evidence will clearly show that the first respondent had indeed been sanctioned a loan at his request and even after giving credit to the amount made available by the Lord Krishna Bank, the first respondent had over-drawn and it was thus that an amount of Rs.13,20,747/= came to be outstanding in his Account. It is pointed out by him that actually on 26.3.1996, the first respondent submitted Cheque No.399226 dated 27.3.1996 for Rs.10 Lakhs for transferring the amount to the Account of the second respondent in the Lord Krishna Bank for closing C.C. No.183 and bill discount amount with the second respondent. It is their case that from out of the said Rs.10 Lakhs, Rs.2,75,273/= came to be allotted to cash credit account No. 183 by pay in slip No.12517 dated 26.3.1996 (Ext.B12). Thereafter, an amount of Rs.3,08,211/= was due from the first respondent in his Bill Discount Account and it was credited to his Bill Discount Account by Ext.B18, BDA slip No. 12518 dated 26.3.1996. The first respondent had S.B. Account No.2499. An amount of Rs.4,16,516/= thus remaining from the total amount of Rs.10 Lakhs received from the Lord Krishna Bank came to be credited to his S.B. Account No.2499 as per Scroll No. 12519 dated 26.3.1996 (Ext.B21). It is stated to be a copy of the scroll. It was while so that on the application of the first respondent, the Committee by resolution allowed a loan of Rs.4,50,100/= to the first respondent by Ext.B22 resolution. It is further pointed out that it is thus that the Cash Credit Account No.231 was opened on 10.4.1996 and the Account Ledger is Ext.B23. It is further contended that the amount outstanding in SB Account No. 2499 was less than Rs.2 Lakhs. It is further pointed out that it is thus that the Cash Credit Account No.231 was opened on 10.4.1996 and the Account Ledger is Ext.B23. It is further contended that the amount outstanding in SB Account No. 2499 was less than Rs.2 Lakhs. The loan amount of Rs.4,50,100/= allowed to the first respondent, came to be shown as Serial No.57 in the payment side. It is pointed out that the first respondent on 10.4.1996 itself issued cheque for Rs.6,50,000/= to Shri Prasanth Kumar, which was collected by him on the very same day. It is pointed out that the first respondent has admitted this in his cross-examination. It is pointed out that by misusing his close friendship with the then Secretary, Shri Gopinathan Nair, the first respondent has withdrawn large amounts exceeding the limit allowed to him from the C.C. Account No.231 by using cheque leaves from the cheque book obtained by him from the Bank. It is the petitioner’s further case that of the above cheques, 124 cheques for a sum of Rs.32,07,307/=, which could be traced out, have been produced and marked as Exts.B26 to B149. It is thereafter pointed out that as on 27.1996, the amount over drawn exceeding the allowed limit came to Rs.12,51,147/=. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.12 Lakhs was made over to the Cash Credit Account No.231. Further, on 7.1.1997, a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs came to be paid and again on 18.6.1997, an amount of Rs.8 Lakhs came to be paid. According to the petitioner Bank, the aforesaid sum of Rs.30 Lakhs was transferred to the Account of the second respondent from the Account of Lord Krishna Bank. Thereafter, upto 18.1997, the amounts withdrawn by the first respondent inclusive of interest came to Rs.12,42,683/= and on 10.1997 with accrual of interest the amount stood at Rs.13,20,747/= Petitioner also refers to the cross-examination of the first respondent. In his cross-examination, the first respondent would say that it was on 10.4.1996 that the Cash Credit Account No.231 was opened. He would further say that Rs.12 Lakhs was credited to Cash Credit Account No.231, and that amounts were withdrawn as per cheques. In his cross-examination, the first respondent would say that it was on 10.4.1996 that the Cash Credit Account No.231 was opened. He would further say that Rs.12 Lakhs was credited to Cash Credit Account No.231, and that amounts were withdrawn as per cheques. Therefore, Shri George Poonthottam would point out that this is a case where the Tribunal was clearly at error, at any rate, in not finding that the first respondent had availed a loan as could be seen from the operations carried on in C.C. Account No. 231 and it is contended that the amount remained outstanding even after given credit to Rs.40 Lakhs which was availed by the first respondent from the Lord Krishna Bank. Shri Bechu Kurian Thomas would counter this contention by pointing out that the documents produced on the side of the defendants were all copies and originals have not been produced. He would point out that there are manipulations and discrepancies in the Accounts. He would reiterate that as correctly found by the Tribunal, there was no application submitted by the first respondent to avail any loan or bill discounting facility. If loans were actually sanctioned as contended, it would be property documented, security would have been furnished by the first respondent and agreement would have been executed, he points out. He points out that there is nothing on record to show that the first respondent had signed and submitted any application seeking loan or the first respondent had furnished security or there was any agreement evidencing the granting of these loans. According to him, all that has happened was that amounts which were sanctioned by the Lord Krishna Bank were made over to the second respondent and for the sake of convenience, he had only drawn the said amounts from the second respondent. He would point out that this Court had in Ext.P4 Judgment only allowed production of the documents, in particular the cheques. He would submit that even if all the cheques are relied on, the total amount withdrawn by the petitioner is far less than the amounts which have been credited on the basis of he loan given to him by the Lord Krishna Bank. According to him, the first respondent had only availed the benefit of the loan sanctioned to him by the Lord Krishna Bank and there is nothing more. According to him, the first respondent had only availed the benefit of the loan sanctioned to him by the Lord Krishna Bank and there is nothing more. He would submit further that in this state of the record and when assuming at the worst that another view is possible, that would not be sufficient for this Court to interfere under Article 226 in exercise of the powers under judicial review. 21. InIshwar Dass Jain (Dead) through L.Rs. V. Sohan Lal (Dead) by L.Rs. (2000) 1 SCC 434), the Apex Court held as follows: “Under Section 34 sanctity is attached in the law of evidence to books of account, if the books are indeed “account books” i.e. in original and if they show, on their face, that they are kept in the “regular course of business”. Such sanctity cannot attach to private extracts of alleged account books where the original accounts are not filed in court. This is because, from the extracts, it cannot be discovered whether the accounts are kept in the regular course of business or if there are any interpolations or whether the interpolations are in a different ink or whether the accounts are in the form of a book with continuous page numbering. Hence, if the original books have not been produced, it is not possible to know whether the entries relating to payment of rent are entries made in the regular course of business. It is only in the case of the Bankers’ Book Evidence, 1891 that certified copies are allowed or the case must come under Section 65 (j) or (g) of the Evidence Act”. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla And Others ((1998) 3 SCC 410), the Apex Court held as follows: “Book” ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as “book” for they can be easily detached and replaced. Therefore, the two spiral notebooks (MR 68/91 and MR 71/91) and the two spiral pads (MR 69/91 and MR 70/91) are “books” within the meaning of Section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files (MRs. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as “book” for they can be easily detached and replaced. Therefore, the two spiral notebooks (MR 68/91 and MR 71/91) and the two spiral pads (MR 69/91 and MR 70/91) are “books” within the meaning of Section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files (MRs. 72/91 and 73/91).” In Canara Bank V. Canara Sales Corporation and Others ((1987) 2 SCC 666), the Apex Court held as follows: “In order to sustain a plea of acquiescence, it is necessary to prove that the party against whom the said plea is raised, had remained silent about the matter regarding which the plea of acquiescence is raised, even after knowing on his part after knowing the truth of the matter. But mere inaction on the part of a customer for continuously long period of time in not discovering of a customer for continuously long period of time in not discovering fraud or irregularity, in absence of knowledge, cannot by itself be a defence to defeat the customer in an action for loss.” In Chandradhar Goswami and Others V. Gauhati Bank Ltd. (AIR 1967 SC 1058), it was held that mere entries from Banks, Books of Accounts or mere copies thereof are not sufficient to charge a person with liability except where the person concerned accepts the correctness of the entries. In this context, the Court held as follows: “No person can be charged with liability merely on the basis of entries in books of account, even where such books of account are kept in the regular course of business. There has to be further evidence to prove payment of the money, which may appear in the books of account in order that a person may be charged with liability thereunder, except where the person to be charged accepts the correctness of the books of account and does not challenge them. The original entries alone under S. 34 of the Evidence Act would not be sufficient to charge any person with liability and as such, copies produced under S.4 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act obviously cannot charge any person with liability”. Shri Bechu Kurian Thomas also relied on the decision in Union Bank of India V. K.V. Venugoplan and Others (AIR 1990 KER. 223). Shri Bechu Kurian Thomas also relied on the decision in Union Bank of India V. K.V. Venugoplan and Others (AIR 1990 KER. 223). Therein, it was held as follows: “Money lodged with banks as fixed deposits is a loan to the bank. The banker in connection with the “fixed deposit” is a debtor. The depositor accordingly would cease to be the owner of the money in fixed deposit. The said money becomes the money of the bank, enabling the bank to do as it likes subject, however, to repay the debt on maturity. Money put in fixed deposit, therefore, constitutes a debt in the hands of the banker and a debt cannot be a suitable subject for a lien, because a lien is a right recognized in a creditor to retain another man’s property until the debt is paid. A ‘lien’ postulates property of the debtor in the possession or under the control of the creditor. A creditor enjoying the ‘lien’ however has no right to sell the thing or dispose it of. In other words, he is only entitled to retain possession.” He also relied on the decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers’ Union and Another ((2000) 4 SCC 245), wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “The Single Judge has undertaken an exercise, impermissible for him in exercising writ jurisdiction, by liberally appreciating the evidence and drawing conclusions of his own on pure question of fact, unmindful, though aware fully that he is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by a tribunal, presided over by a judicial officer. The findings of fact recorded by a fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose and which ordinarily should be considered to have become final, cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the writ court to warrant those findings, at any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken. The Division Bench was not only justified but well merited in its criticism of the order of the Single Judge and in ordering restoration of the award of the Tribunal.” The decision in Management of Madurantakam Coop. The Division Bench was not only justified but well merited in its criticism of the order of the Single Judge and in ordering restoration of the award of the Tribunal.” The decision in Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. V. S. Viswanathan ((2005) 3 SCC 193) also related to judicial review sought in respect of an Award by the Labour Court. 22. Proceedings under Article 226 of he Constitution are not appellate proceedings. The jurisdiction is supervisory. The Court is concerned with the decision making process. The merits of the matter, no doubt is not entirely immune from judicial review. However, flowing from the very nature of the jurisdiction, limitations arise in regard to the extent to which findings can be interfered with. Unless a finding of fact is perverse, it is not open to this Court to interfere with the matter. 23. It is clear that the Bank cannot claim a lien in respect of the Fixed Deposits. Therefore the Bank can succeed only on the strength of the adjustment made on the basis of the consent to the same by the first respondent. 24. Even proceeding that there was a loan account vide Account No.C.C.231, and there was an amount outstanding, in view of the fact that the case of adjustment on the request of the first respondent has been found to be not proved, it may not be open to decline the relief of repayment of the Fixed Deposits. In such circumstances, I find that there is no merit in the Writ petitions and they are dismissed.