ORDER : The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCS Act’, for brevity). 2. The second respondent is said to have availed a mortgage loan of Rs.4,50,000/- on 06.11.2000 by executing valid documents along with sureties who are respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The borrower is said to have committed default in repayment of the loan amount. This made the petitioner Society to file a dispute for recovery of the loan amount before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed an award along with penal interest. When the petitioner Society took steps to recover the awarded amount, the Management of the petitioner Society is said to have given a waiver of a sum of Rs.77,360/-, which was the quantum of penal interest and was payable by the defaulters (respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein). The incumbent Management of the petitioner Society i.e., the present Board of Management of the Society, filed a dispute for recovery of the said waived amount of Rs.77,360/-, claiming that the said waiver was illegal and unauthorized and was done by the former Chairman of the petitioner Society only to favour the borrower, who was his family member. The learned Arbitrator dismissed the dispute filed by the Society by his order dated 05.08.2008. Aggrieved by the order of the Arbitrator, the petitioner Society preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru in Appeal No.664/2008. The appeal also came to be dismissed on merits on 28.03.2017. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner Society has preferred this petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in his arguments made a submission that, under Section 28-A(1) of the KCS Act, the management of the Cooperative Societies will be vested in a Board constituted in accordance with law. The previous Board has acted in detrimental to the interest of the Society, as such, under Section 70(2)(e) of the KCS Act, the Society has got both the cause of action and right to recover the alleged waived amount from the respondents herein. 4. Section 28-A(1) of the KCS Act reads as below: “28-A. Management of co-operative societies vest in the board – (1) The Management of a co-operative society shall vest in a board constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of such society. 4. Section 28-A(1) of the KCS Act reads as below: “28-A. Management of co-operative societies vest in the board – (1) The Management of a co-operative society shall vest in a board constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of such society. The board shall exercise such powers, discharge such duties and perform such functions as may be conferred or imposed upon it by this Act, the rules and the bye-laws. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” A reading of the said Section goes to show that, the management of the Cooperative Society will be with the Board constituted in accordance with the KCS Act. It is not in dispute that the previous management, which is said to have given a waiver of the alleged penal interest payable by the respondent No.2 (borrower), was the management constituted in accordance with law. As such, it is nobody’s case that the previous management, which has given a waiver of penal interest, was not a management in the eye of law, more particularly, under Section 28-A(1) of the KCS Act. 5. Section 70 of the KCS Act deals with the disputes that may be referred to Registrar for decision. Section 70(2)(e) of the KCS Act, upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon, reads as below: “70. Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision – (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society, namely:- (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (d) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (e) a claim by a co-operative society for any deficiency caused in the assets of the co-operative society by a member, past member, deceased member or deceased officer, past agent or deceased agent or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant or by its board, past or present whether such loss be admitted or not.” A reading of the said Section goes to show that, a claim by the Cooperative Society for any deficiency in the assets of the Cooperative Society by a member is also a dispute that can be brought under the purview of Section 70 of the KCS Act by the Society. The case of the Society for the alleged recovery of the loan amount from a defaulter/borrower would undisputedly is a dispute falling within the scope of Section 70 of the KCS Act. The case of the Society for the alleged recovery of the loan amount from a defaulter/borrower would undisputedly is a dispute falling within the scope of Section 70 of the KCS Act. 6. In the instant case, admittedly, the previous management has instituted a dispute against the alleged borrower and sureties for recovery of the money under Section 70 of the KCS Act, which dispute was referred to the Arbitrator, who passed an award in the matter. The said award was not challenged by the borrower, as such, the Society proceeded further in executing the said award at which point of time, the Society gave a waiver to the penal interest. 7. Thus undisputedly a dispute between the Society and the borrower for recovery of the loan amount was agitated between the parties and decided in accordance with law and in the said process of execution of the award, the management has given a waiver to the penal interest. The contention of the petitioner is that, the said act of the management in giving waiver to the penal interest in favour of the borrower was not warranted in the circumstances of the case and that the Chairman of the previous management has shown favouratism to the borrower. 8. Thus, the non-agreement of the present management for an act done by the earlier management would be solely between those two managements, which in no way affect the rights or liabilities of the borrower. Undisputedly, the then management of the Society has issued a loan clearance document also in favour of the borrower in its normal course of business. If at all the said act of the previous management is not acceptable to the present management, it has got separate recourse under law to be taken against the previous management. On the other hand, the present management cannot rake up the issue which has already reached its finality in accordance with law, wherein the borrower has cleared the claimed loan amount enjoying the benefit of waiver of the penal interest granted in his favour by the Society. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present act of the Society gives any separate cause of action to claim recovery of the waived interest from the borrower is not acceptable. 9. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present act of the Society gives any separate cause of action to claim recovery of the waived interest from the borrower is not acceptable. 9. For the said reason, I am of the view that the present petition does not deserve to be proceeded further by ordering notice upon other respondents. Accordingly, at the stage of issuance of notice to the respondents itself, the petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.