ORDER : S. Nagamuthu, J. An important legal issue as to whether a Registrar acting under Section 87 of The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, while passing an award, could order for payment of interest from the date of institution of the surcharge proceedings at the rate of interest lesser than the rate of contractual interest, has arisen for consideration. 2. The petitioner, a Co-Operative Society, governed under the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act [in short, "the Act"], initiated a proceeding under Section 87 of the Act before the Deputy Registrar/Chief Revenue Officer / Arbitrator, Erode, in A.R.C. No.6982/2003-2004, claiming a sum of Rs.74,19,020/- with interest at the rate of 17% p.a. and penal interest at the rate of 3% p.a. Admittedly, the respondent had secured loan from the petitioner by mortgaging his properties. In the said mortgage deed, he had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 17% and penal interest at the rate of 3% p.a. The arbitrator passed an award on 26.03.2011 directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.74,19,020/- with interest at the rate of 13.50% p.a. from 27.03.2011 which was the date of institution of the surcharge proceedings. As against the same, the respondent filed a statutory appeal under Section 152 of the Act before the Cooperative Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Erode, in C.M.A.C.S. No.36 of 2011. The tribunal by order dated 22.11.2012 partly allowed the appeal thereby modifying the award of the arbitrator. The cooperative tribunal, while confirming the award relating to the principal amount as claimed by the petitioner, however, reduced the interest to 6% p.a. from the date of initiation of the surcharge proceedings before the arbitrator. The petitioner is aggrieved by the reduction of rate of interest. According to the petitioner, the respondent is liable to pay the contractual rate of interest and neither the arbitrator nor the tribunal has got power to reduce the rate of interest from the contractual rate of interest. As against the said order of the Tribunal, this revision has been filed. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondent is liable to pay the contractual rate of interest and neither the arbitrator nor the tribunal has got power to reduce the rate of interest from the contractual rate of interest. As against the said order of the Tribunal, this revision has been filed. 3. When this revision petition came up before a learned single Judge of this Court [M. Duraiswamy, J.], the counsel for the revision petitioner contended that as per the judgements of this court in Attur Thuluva Velalar Sangam v. S. Duraisamy, 2014 (1) MWN (Civil) 286 and Madurai City Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madurai and others, 1999 (II) CTC 407 , the co-operative tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the contractual rate of interest (13.5% p.a.) till the date of decree and the co-operative tribunal was in error in restricting the rate of interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the proceedings till the date of realization of the amount. To the contrary, it was contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent before the learned single Judge that as per the judgements of this court in The Nasiyanur Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Mrs. V. Kolandayammal and others, 2010-1-L.W. 499 and Erode District Central Co-operative Bank Limited v. Velayuthasamy Rice Mill and others, (2007) 4 MLJ 927 , the co-operative tribunal has jurisdiction to restrict the rate of interest to 6% p.a. from the date of proceedings or the date of award till the date of realisation of the amount. 4. Having noticed the conflicting views expressed by these two sets of judgements, the learned single Judge thought it fit to place the matter before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for listing it before the Division Bench to answer the following question :- "Whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to restrict the rate of interest to 6% p.a. From the date of the plain till the date of realization of the money as held in the judgments reported in 2010 (1) LW 499 (Nasiyanur Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Mrs. V. Kolandayammal and others) and 2007 (4) MLJ 927 (Erode District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Velayuthasamy Rice Mill by its Proprietor, Chinnapalayam, Erode and others) (or) the rate of interest should be awarded at the contractual rate till the date of the decree as held in the judgments reported in 2014 (1) MWN (Civil) 286 (Attur Thuluva Velalar Sangam rep. By its Secretary v. S. Duraisamy) and 1999 (II) CTC 407 (Madurai City Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madurai and three others)" The above said reference, on the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, has been listed before us. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and we have also perused the records carefully. 6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provision contained in Order 34, Rule 11 of CPC is not at all applicable to a mortgage suit. The learned counsel submitted that as per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 34 of CPC, since in the instant case, the transaction is commercial in nature, the interest should not have been restricted to 6% p.a. and the same should have been extended to the contractual rate of interest. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the tribunal ought to have followed the judgments in Attur Thuluva Velalar Sangam v. S. Duraisamy, 2014 (1) MWN (Civil) 286 and Madurai City Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madurai and others, 1999 (II) CTC 407 . 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that sub-section (8) of Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 has declared that Section 34 of CPC is not at all applicable to any decision passed or award made under Section 90 of the Act. The learned counsel would therefore submit that since there is no other provision in the Act regulating the payment of interest, the co-operative tribunal was right in invoking Order 34, Rule 11 of CPC which is applicable to a suit on mortgage or a claim made on mortgage. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the co-operative tribunal was right in following the judgement in The Nasiyanur Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Mrs. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the co-operative tribunal was right in following the judgement in The Nasiyanur Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Mrs. V. Kolandayammal and others, 2010-1-L.W. 499 and Erode District Central Co-operative Bank Limited v. Velayuthasamy Rice Mill and others, (2007) 4 MLJ 927 . 8. Let us, at the first, look into the judgement of a learned single Judge of this court [Justice S. Palanivelu] in Attur Thuluva Velalar Sangam's case cited supra. First of all, that was not a case relating to any award made under The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act or under any other in pari materia Act. It was a judgement relating to a civil suit based on mortgage. In that suit instead of awarding interest at the contractual rate, the first appellate court restricted the same to 6% p.a. When that was put under challenge, the learned single Judge made reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.M. Veerappa v. Canara Bank, 1998 (I) CTC 219 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarised the principles as follows :- "(a) Before 1929, it was obligatory for the Court to direct the contract rate of interest to be paid by the mortgagor on the sum adjudged in the preliminary decree, from the date of suit till the date fixed for payment as per Order 34, Rule 2 (c)(i) or Order 34, Rule 4 (1) or Order 34, Rule 7 (c)(i), respectively in suits for foreclosure, sale or redemption. (b) But after the 1929 Amendment, because of the words used in the main part of Order 34, Rule 11, namely that "the Court may order payment of interest" it is no longer obligatory on the part of the Court while passing preliminary decree to require payment at the contract rate of interest from date of suit till the date fixed in the preliminary decree for payment of the amount. It had been so held in Jaigobind's Case by the Privy Council [AIR 1940 FC 20] and by this Court in S.P. Majoo's Case [ 1969 (3) SCR 33 ] that the new provision gives a certain amount of discretion to the Court so far as pendente lite interest is concerned and subsequent interest is concerned. It had been so held in Jaigobind's Case by the Privy Council [AIR 1940 FC 20] and by this Court in S.P. Majoo's Case [ 1969 (3) SCR 33 ] that the new provision gives a certain amount of discretion to the Court so far as pendente lite interest is concerned and subsequent interest is concerned. (c) It is no longer obligatory to award the contractual rate after date of suit and upto date fixed for redemption as above stated even though there was no question of the contractual rate being penal, excessive or substantially unfair within the meaning of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918. (d) Even if the Court otherwise wants to award interest, the position after the 1929 and 1956 Amendments is that the Court has discretion to fix interest from date of suit under Order 34, Rule 11 (a)(i) upto date fixed for payment in the preliminary decree, the same rate agreed in the contract, or, if no rate is so fixed, such rate as the Court deems reasonable - on the principal amount found or declared due on the mortgager is concerned. (e) The Court has also power to award from date of suit under Order 34, Rule 11 (a) (iii) a rate of interest on costs, charges and expenses as per the contract rate or failing such rate, at a rate no exceeding 65. This is the position of the discretionary power of the Court, from date of suit upto date fixed in the preliminary decree as the date for payment. (f) Again under Order 34, Rule 11 (b) so far as the period after the date fixed for payment is concerned, the Court, even if it wants to exercise its discretion to award interest upto date of realisation or actual payment, on the aggregate sums specified in clause (a) of Order 34, Rule 11 could award interest at such rate as it deemed reasonable." Relying on the above principles, the learned single Judge has held that interest should have been ordered at the contractual rate from the date of filing of the plaint till the date of passing of the decree and interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till date of realisation. 9. 9. Now, let us look into the judgement of yet another single Judge of this Court [Justice P. Sathasivam as he then was] in Madurai City Co-operative Housing Limited cited supra. That was a case relating to an award made under Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. In the said case, the Cooperative Sub Registrar passed an award with a direction for payment of interest at 16% p.a. payable to the society. When an appeal was made against the same, the Co-operative Tribunal modified a portion of the award and directed that from the date of award of the arbitrator, the interest shall be paid at the rate of 6% p.a. on the principle amount till the date of realisation. The tribunal disallowed the claim of interest at the contractual rate of 16% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation. Aggrieved over the same, the cooperative society filed a writ petition. In that case, the main argument before the learned single Judge was that as per Section 34 of CPC, the borrower is liable to pay interest at the contractual rate. The learned single Judge referred to sub-section (8) of Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and held that Section 34 of CPC is not at all applicable to an award made under Section 90 of the Act. Accordingly, the learned single Judge held that since Section 34 of CPC is not applicable, interest should be awarded as per Order 34, Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, according to the learned single Judge, interest should be awarded at the contractual rate at 16% p.a. for the decree amount till the date of realisation. 10. In The Nasiyanur Co-operative Housing Society Limited's case cited supra the learned single Judge of this court [P. Jyothimani, J.] had to deal with Section 34 of CPC, Order 34, Rule 11 of CPC and sub-section (8) of Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The learned single Judge had, in fact, made a thorough research on these provisions and reiterated that as per sub-section (8) of Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, Section 34 of CPC is not at all applicable to an award made under Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The learned single Judge had, in fact, made a thorough research on these provisions and reiterated that as per sub-section (8) of Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, Section 34 of CPC is not at all applicable to an award made under Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. He has further held that for granting interest after the date of filing of the suit, it is no more obligatory to grant the contractual rate and certain amount of discretion is vested with the court and there is no reason to conclude that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.M. Veerappa's case cited supra is not applicable to the settlement of disputes made under Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The learned single Judge therefore held that on a consideration of the language employed in Order 23, Rule 11 of CPC and the interpretation there in the manner stated by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even in a case to which the provision under Order 34, Rule 11 of CPC stands attracted, the court has in it, a discretion to award pendente lite and post-decree interest at a rate lesser than the contractual rate. In Erode District Central Co-operative Bank Limited's case cited supra, yet another single Judge [V. Ramasubramanian, J.] has taken a similar view. As a matter of fact, the said view taken was followed with the approval by P. Jyothimani, J. In The Nasiyanur Co-operative Housing Society Limited's case. 11. As has been held in all these four judgements consistently, there can be no doubt that in view of the express provision contained in sub-section (8) of Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act in respect of an award under Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, Section 34 of CPC is not at all applicable. Therefore, there can be no dispute that Order 34, Rule 11 of CPC is applicable in respect of interest to be awarded while passing an award under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act because except Section 34 of CPC, the other provisions have not been excluded from their applicability to the proceedings before the Arbitrator under The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Co-operative Tribunal under the said Act. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in N.M. Veerappa v. Canara Bank, 2014 (1) MWN (Civil) 286 and others, before 1929 it was obligatory for the court to restrict the rate of interest to be paid in the preliminary decree from the date of suit till the date fixed for payment as per Order 34 of CPC. But, after 1929 amendment, because of the words used in the main part of Order 34, Rule 11 of CPC, namely, that "the court may order payment of interest", it is no longer obligatory on the part of the court while passing preliminary decree to require payment on the amount due from the date of suit till the date fixed in decree for payment due under the decree. The new provision gives certain amount of discretion to the court. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the court has discretion to order payment of interest from the date of suit under Order 34, Rule 11 of CPC upto the date fixed for payment in the preliminary decree, the same rate agreed in the contract or if no rate is so fixed such rate on the principal amount found is concerned. As has been lucidly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.M. Veerappa's case cited supra, the discretion vested with the arbitrator acting under Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Tribunal acting under Section 152 of the said Act cannot be doubted. Thus, it is crystal clear that it is not at all obligatory that the arbitrator or the tribunal should award interest from the date of claim only at the contractual rate. We make it clear that the arbitrator as well as the tribunal have got discretion to award any reasonable rate of interest following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in N.M. Veerappa's case cited supra. 12. In conclusion, we answer the reference as follows:- (i) Section 34 of CPC is not applicable to an award made under Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. 12. In conclusion, we answer the reference as follows:- (i) Section 34 of CPC is not applicable to an award made under Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. (ii) The Arbitrator passing award under Section 90 of The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and the Co-operative Tribunal acting under Section 152 of The said Act have got absolute discretion to award interest at any reasonable rate not exceeding the contractual rate following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.M. Veerappa v. Canara Bank, 1998 (I) CTC 219 . (iii) The contrary view taken in some of the judgements of this court by the learned single Judges hereby stand over-ruled. 13. The Registry is directed to place this Civil Revision Petition before the learned Single Judge for disposal.