ORDER : R. DEVDAS, J. 1. This writ petition raises a peculiar question as to whether the requirement of a pre-deposit in terms of Section 105(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) would compel a co-operative Bank to deposit 25% of the amount due in terms of the order, decision or award impugned. 2. A brief background may be necessary to consider the issue raised. The second respondent had availed certain loan facilities from the petitioner-Bank and various outstanding amounts were due and payable, according to the petitioner-Bank. When the second respondent defaulted in making the payments, attempts were made to settle the matter under One Time Settlement scheme. However, it was contended on behalf of the second respondent that it had indeed paid in excess of what was required to be paid to the petitioner-Bank. It was contended that the excess amount amounting to Rs.11.82 lakhs which was paid by the second respondent had been adjusted towards the loan account of its sister concerned M/s.Softline Software. 3. When the petitioner-Bank raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the authority passed an order on 08.03.2016 holding that the second respondent had in fact paid more than what was due to the petitioner-Bank and therefore, directed the petitioner-Bank to refund a sum of Rs.11.82 lakhs to the second respondent. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Bank approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. As a preliminary objection, the second respondent herein filed an application seeking a direction at the hands of the Tribunal to the petitioner-Bank to deposit 25% of the amount, in terms of Section 105(2) of the Act. The petitioner-Bank filed its objection to the Interlocutory application and thereafter arguments were heard on the preliminary objection raised by the second respondent herein. The Tribunal proceeded to hold that it was mandatory on the part of the appellant before the Tribunal to deposit 25% in terms of Section 105(2) of the Act and therefore, directed the petitioner-Bank to comply with the provisions of Section 105(2) of the Act, in terms of the award passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 4. The Tribunal proceeded to hold that it was mandatory on the part of the appellant before the Tribunal to deposit 25% in terms of Section 105(2) of the Act and therefore, directed the petitioner-Bank to comply with the provisions of Section 105(2) of the Act, in terms of the award passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 4. Learned Counsel Sri Abhinav R. appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Bank submitted that a plain reading of Section 105(2) of the Act, makes it clear that the deposit is required to be made to the concerned Society and therefore, the provision is actually intended to protect the interest of the Co-operative societies/Banks. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the deposit is directed to be made with the concerned Society and therefore it will be an empty formality to direct the petitioner-Bank to deposit 25% of the award amount with itself. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel Sri Murthy D.Naik, appearing for the second respondent submits that the provisions should be read having the facts and circumstances of a particular case in mind. It is submitted that as in the present case, there may be a situation where an award could be passed against the Co-operative Bank or Society. Admittedly, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has come to a conclusion that the petitioner-Bank is liable to refund a sum of Rs.11.82 lakhs to the second respondent-Company. Therefore, it is submitted that Section 105(2) is required to be read down in this case as to make deposit with the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel would submit that there are such provisions in several of the statutes dealing with finances and recovery of debts. It is submitted that in all such statutes, the provision for pre-deposit does not make a distinction between borrower and the bank. However, owing to the plain meaning of the words used in the provision, the Tribunal has rightly come to a conclusion that the deposit is required to be made by the petitioner-Bank. The learned Counsel would also submit that even in the objections filed by the petitioner-Bank, it is not contended that the provision does not require a Co-operative Society or a Bank to make the deposit. 7. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers. 8. The learned Counsel would also submit that even in the objections filed by the petitioner-Bank, it is not contended that the provision does not require a Co-operative Society or a Bank to make the deposit. 7. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers. 8. The golden rule of interpretation of a provision of law or a statute is to give the words their plain meaning and unless the plain meaning would give rise to absurdity, any other meaning to the plain words should not be entertained. On a plain reading of Section 105(2) of the Act, it is clear that it would only mean that 25% of the amount due in terms of the order, decision or award, is required to be made with the “concerned society” and unless proof is produced before the Tribunal to show that the appeal is accompanied by a satisfactory proof for having deposited with the “concerned society” 25% of the amount, the appeal will not be entertained. The provision also provides that after the disposal of the appeal, the amount so deposited shall be adjusted towards the amount payable by the appellant and in case no amount is required to be paid by the appellant, the amount so deposited shall be refunded to him by the “Society”. Therefore, there cannot be two views that the provision places a mandatory duty on the appellant who is the borrower to make a deposit of 25% with the “concerned Society”. If the words are given its plain meaning, then the petitioner-Bank is required to deposit 25% of the award amount with itself and then make a submission before the Tribunal that it is satisfied of having deposited 25% of the award amount. Obviously, the intention of the legislature would not be that the Co-operative Society or Bank which would be an appellant before the Tribunal is required to make a deposit with itself. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Counsel for the second respondent that the petitioner-Bank should be directed to deposit the said amount with the Tribunal also cannot be accepted. There is no such provision which would require the appellant to make the deposit with the Tribunal. 9. In the provision at two places, the word “Society” is specifically used. The requirement of the provision is to deposit the amount with the “concerned Society”. There is no such provision which would require the appellant to make the deposit with the Tribunal. 9. In the provision at two places, the word “Society” is specifically used. The requirement of the provision is to deposit the amount with the “concerned Society”. This provision cannot be read in a manner to direct the petitioner-Bank to deposit the said sum with the Tribunal. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the intention of the Legislature is to protect the interest of the Co-operative Society/Bank. The provision pre-supposes that the appellant before the Tribunal would be the borrower himself and not the Society/Bank. Nevertheless, in order to protect the interest of the second respondent, a direction could be given to the petitioner-Bank to file an affidavit undertaking to pay the award amount or any other amount as decided by the Tribunal, while disposing of the appeal. Needless to observe that the affidavit of undertaking shall not foreclose the right of the petitioner-bank to challenge the order of the Tribunal. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.133/2016 by order dated 23.02.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. The consequent order of disposal of the appeal vide order dated 29.05.2018 is also hereby quashed and set aside. The matter stands remanded to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to hear the matter on its merits. However, a direction is also given to the petitioner-Bank to file an affidavit of undertaking as noticed hereinabove. 12. Since the appeal is of the year 2016 and the proceedings itself being initiated way back in the year 2013, the Tribunal is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is ordered accordingly.