Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1121 (KAR)

SHARADAMMA v. JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCIETIES

2017-08-07

B.S.PATIL

body2017
ORDER : 1. Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.1. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide Annexure-F in Appeal No.165/2014 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order passed by respondent No.1 – Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Karnataka State Urban Bank Federation. 3. Petitioners had availed loan from Belur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Belur in Hassan District. As they did not repay the amount and became defaulter, the bank initiated proceedings for recovery of money before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 passed an order dated 15.05.2014 holding that petitioners were liable to discharge the dues in a sum of Rs.4,46,630/with 18% interest along with penal interest at 2% with effect from 01.06.2008 till the entire amount was paid. It was made clear in the order that the amount due had to be recovered by auctioning the property which were the subject matter of mortgage and also any other property of the petitioner. This order was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has affirmed the same. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Main contention urged by the counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners had only availed loan of Rs.25,000/ and had cleared the same; they did not avail the loan of Rs.2,00,000/ and therefore, the Bank by creating false records had laid a fraudulent claim seeking recovery of Rs.2,00,000/. He further submits that security furnished was only in connection with loan of Rs.25,000/and not for the remaining amount. He also contends that interest charged is highly exorbitant, inasmuch interest at 18% along with 2% penal interest has been awarded. It is urged that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate these aspects of the matter while affirming the award passed by respondent No.1. 5. The Tribunal has examined the contentions urged by petitioners in paragraphs 20 to 24 of the order dated 28.10.2016. The Tribunal has pointed out how the stand taken by petitioners herein was false and baseless by considering the documents produced by the Bank. Observations made in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the order clearly bring out that petitioners had indeed availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/. The said amount was transferred to the loan account of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1. The Tribunal has pointed out how the stand taken by petitioners herein was false and baseless by considering the documents produced by the Bank. Observations made in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the order clearly bring out that petitioners had indeed availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/. The said amount was transferred to the loan account of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1. got the said amount sanctioned as loan and if the loan amount sanctioned was only Rs.25,000/, then there was no need or occasion for the Bank to transfer Rs.2,00,000/into the Savings Bank Account of petitioner No.1. Thus, the findings recorded on the factual aspect regarding loan transaction wherein petitioners availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/from the respondent – Bank has been amply established by producing cogent materials. Therefore, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot reappreciate such findings. It cannot be said that these findings are based on no evidence or the result of non-consideration of any relevant piece of evidence. 6. Insofar as rate of interest charged, Bank has gone by agreed terms and conditions between the petitioners and the Bank. Therefore, there is no question of interference in the matter even in that regard, particularly because baseless allegations of fraud are leveled against the Bank. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondent No.1 within three weeks from today.