Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 29.12.2003 made in CMA.No.66/2001 with a prayer to quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Agricultural Co-operative Bank established and maintained as per the terms of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. It is contended that the 1st respondent being a registered member of the petitioner - Bank has availed a loan to the tune of Rs.1 lakh from the Bank on 02.07.1998 and as the said dues were not cleared by the 1st respondent, the petitioner / Bank resorted to the remedy u/s.90 of the Act by referring the same to the 2nd respondent for passing an award for a sum of Rs.1,24,798/- together with an interest @ 18% p.a. The 1st respondent/loanee has not appeared for the enquiry in spite of the summons issued by the 2nd respondent for four times and as a result, an award was passed in ARC.No.3186/2001 dated 16.05.2001 for a sum of Rs.1,53,680/- together with an interest @21% per annum. 3. The 1st respondent has preferred an appeal challenging the award passed by the 2nd respondent u/s.152[i] of the Act in CMA.No.66/2001 on the file of the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent has mainly questioned the award on the point of rate of interest and contended that 6% of interest per annum is held to be reasonable and the learned Principal District Judge has modified the award as per the order dated 29.12.2003 where under the rate of interest was reduced to 6% per annum payable from the date of claim, i.e., from 24.10.2000. Being aggrieved against the said order, the present writ petition is filed with the above said prayer. 4. Mr. V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / Bank would contend that the 3rd respondent mainly placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in A.S.RAMAKRISHNAN VS. Being aggrieved against the said order, the present writ petition is filed with the above said prayer. 4. Mr. V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / Bank would contend that the 3rd respondent mainly placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in A.S.RAMAKRISHNAN VS. BANK OF BARODA, MADURAI reported in 2001-1-CTC-662 which was a case arose out of a suit on mortgage referable to Order 34 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the principle laid down in the said decision is not applicable to the instant case as the instant case would come well within the provision u/s.90[8] of the Act. It is contended that section 90[8] of the Act specifically provides in applicability of Order 34 Rule 11 CPC. It is also contended that the impugned order is contrary to the specific provision under section 90[8] of the Act and as per the said provision, the petitioner is entitled to claim an interest @ 21% per annum. It is further contended that the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent placed reliance on the decision in R.SRINIVASAN Vs. THE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL FOR CO-OPERATIVE CASES, MADURAI AND OTHERS reported in 1997 [2] MLJ 112 and even in the said case, it is clearly stated that the provision under Order 34 CPC was placed reliance for reducing the rate of interest to 6% and the specific provision available under section 90[8] of the Act was not at all referred or considered in the said decision. 5. Per contra, Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would contend that this court in the decision reported in 1997 [2] MLJ 112 [R.Srinivasan's case cited supra] arising out of loan transaction, has held that the Cooperative Bank is entitled to claim an interest @ 6% per annum and such being the position, the 3rd respondent has placed reliance on the said decision invoking the provision under Order 34 Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, it is contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in reducing the interest from 21% to 6% p.a. 6. Heard Mr.E.M.S.Natarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 7. Therefore, it is contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in reducing the interest from 21% to 6% p.a. 6. Heard Mr.E.M.S.Natarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 7. This court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order. 8. At the outset, it is to be stated that the issue involved in this matter is in respect of the loan transaction between the 1st respondent and the petitioner / Bank and more particularly, in respect of the rate of interest to be paid by the 1st respondent herein. The 2nd respondent has passed an award to the tune of Rs.1,53,680/- together with an interest @ 21% p.a. On appeal filed u/s.152[1] of the Act, the 3rd respondent has reduced the interest rate from 21% to 6% per annum and the said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 9. It is pertinent to note that the 3rd respondent has wrongly placed reliance on the decision in A.S.RAMAKRISHNAN's case [cited supra] reported in 2001-1-CTC-662 which was a case arose out of a suit on mortgage referable to Order 34 Rule 11 CPC and in the said decision, specific provision available u/s.90[8] of the Act was not considered. Again, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent placed reliance on the decision in R.SRINIVASAN's case [cited supra] reported in 1997-2-MLJ-112 and even in the said decision, this court has placed reliance on Order 34 CPC. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the provision u/s.90[8] of the Act, which reads as here under:- "90[8]:- Nothing contained in section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Central Act V of 1908] shall apply to any decision passed or award made under this section" 10. A bare perusal of the above said provision makes it crystal clear that the said provision specifically exclude the applicability of section 34 CPC in respect of any decision passed or award already made under the section. A bare perusal of the above said provision makes it crystal clear that the said provision specifically exclude the applicability of section 34 CPC in respect of any decision passed or award already made under the section. As a matter of fact, the award was passed by the 2nd respondent only as per the provision u/s.90 of the Act as the said issue was raised by the petitioner herein and accordingly, an award was passed for an amount of Rs.1,53,680/-with an interest @ 21% per annum. However, the 3rd respondent has modified the same, as pointed out earlier, only by placing reliance on the decision which was rendered on the basis of Order 34 Rule 11 CPC which case arose for suit on mortgage. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent reported in 1997-2-MLJ-112 [cited supra], there is no reference or any points in respect of the exclusion clause available u/s.90[8] of the Act. Therefore, there is no justification for reducing the interest by placing reliance on the provision under Order 34 CPC or by placing reliance on the decision cited above as in the said decision, the said point was not at all raised as per the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 11. Therefore, this court is constrained to modify the order passed by the 3rd respondent herein in respect of the rate of interest. It is needless to state that it is the discretion of the petitioner / Bank to accept less than 21% of interest per annum. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that fixing the rate of interest @ 12% per annum would meet the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the rate of interest awarded by the 3rd respondent in CMA.No.66/2001 dated 29.12.2003 at 6% per annum is modified to one of 12% per annum. It is made clear that the interest shall be calculated at 12% per annum from the date of award passed by the 2nd respondent herein. 13. With the above modification and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.