ORDER : C.M. Poonacha, J. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: "i. Call for records in Appeal No.89/2023 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore; ii. Issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other writ, order or direction and set aside the order dated 12.04.2023 passed on IA No.I filed under Section 5 r/w Section 14 of Limitation Act (Annexure - O), I.A. No.II filed under Regulation 13 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations (Annexure-01) and I.A.No.III filed under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 105 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (Annexure 02), in Appeal No.89/2023 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore (Annexure - P); ii(a). Issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other writ, order or direction and set aside the Order dated 24.08.2023 passed on IA No.4 and 7 in Appeal No.89/2023 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore (Annexure - U) and allow the IA No.4 filed under Regulation 4 of the Karnataka Administration Tribunal Regulations and IA No.7 filed under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Annexures - Q & R); iii. Declare that the proceedings in Appeal No.89/2023 pending on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore, is without jurisdiction and is non-est in law; and iv. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just including the costs of this proceedings." 2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present petition are that, the Petitioner-Society entered into a Land Assembling cum Development Agreement[hereinafter referred to as 'the said Agreement'] dated 15.03.2013 with Respondent No.1 who was the Proprietor of Vinayaka Builders and Developers. Due to certain disputes between the parties arising from the said Agreement, the Petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959[hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] before Respondent No.2 - Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Bengaluru. Vide order/award dated 28.04.2017, the Respondent No.2 - Joint Registrar directed Respondent No.1 to pay the Petitioner-Society a sum of Rs.17,57,87,000/- together with interest and costs. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.1 preferred W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017. Vide order dated 28.08.2017, this Court allowed the said writ petitions in part and directed the Respondent No.1 herein who was the Petitioner in the said writ petition to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.1 preferred W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017. Vide order dated 28.08.2017, this Court allowed the said writ petitions in part and directed the Respondent No.1 herein who was the Petitioner in the said writ petition to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores. It was further specifically ordered that if the Respondent no.1 did not deposit the money, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the order and the Society would be entitled to execute the award dated 28.04.2017. 3. It is forthcoming from the record that Respondent No.1 did not deposit the sum of Rs.2 crores as per the said order dated 28.7.2017 passed in W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017. In view of the same, properties were attached pursuant to the award dated 28.04.2017 and sale of properties in public auctions were held on 21.6.2018, 18.07.2018 and 09.07.2018. Respondent No.1 filed I.A. No.1/2018 in W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017 for extension of time to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores. 4. This Court vide order dated 13.11.2018, passed on I.A.1/2018 passed the following order: "After hearing and perusing the pleadings certain facts stand crystallized. It is apparent that the parties have been carrying on transactions which in fact led to the present imbroglio and many a transaction has been based on mutual trust. On account of certain fact beyond the control, the parties have resorted to litigation, which this Court is of the opinion, could be resolved by Mediation/Arbitration. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the parties are willing to resolve the issue by way of Arbitration and that the dispute which has arisen can be adjudicated by an Arbitrator mutually agreeable to the parties and the Learned Senior Counsel and the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant have suggested the name of Sri.G.Patri Basavana Goud, Retired judge of this Court. In this regard, Justice Sri.G.Patri Basavana Goud, Retired Judge, High Court of Karnataka is appointed as an Arbitrator to sit in arbitration to resolve all the disputes that have arisen between the parties." 5. The wife of Respondent No.1 preferred W.P. Nos.12294/2018 and 12344/2018 challenging the auction of her property by the Petitioner-Bank. In this regard, Justice Sri.G.Patri Basavana Goud, Retired Judge, High Court of Karnataka is appointed as an Arbitrator to sit in arbitration to resolve all the disputes that have arisen between the parties." 5. The wife of Respondent No.1 preferred W.P. Nos.12294/2018 and 12344/2018 challenging the auction of her property by the Petitioner-Bank. This Court vide interim order dated 21.3.2018, recorded the submission of Respondent No.1 herein who was arrayed as Respondent No.3 in the said writ petition that he would deposit a total sum of Rs.2 crores with the Petitioner-Society, which submission was placed on record and having regard to the same, interim stay of the auction notices which was the subject matter of the said petition was granted. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 13.11.2018 disposed of the said writ petition by ordering that the parties shall be bound by the order passed on I.A.1/2018 in W.P. Nos.26286-328/2017 which order was passed on 28.04.2017. 6. It is forthcoming that consequent to the said order dated 13.11.2018, the parties entered appearance before the Arbitrator and filed their respective pleadings. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed an application to implead the purchasers who have purchased the properties in the auction who were not parties to the said Agreement. The Arbitral Tribunal by its order dated 09.5.2020 terminated the Arbitration Proceedings under section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1996']. It is placed on record by Respondent No.1 that the said order dated 09.05.2020 is the subject matter of proceedings before the Civil Court under Section 14(2) of the Act, 1996. 7. Respondent No.1 and his wife filed W.P. No.10232/2020 before this Court seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the Joint Registrar and the Recovery Officer to restitute properties sold in the public auction and other reliefs. This Court by order dated 18.11.2020, dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.1 and his wife preferred Writ Appeal No.703/2020. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.12.2021, dismissed the said Appeal. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 and his wife preferred Review Petition No.400/2021. Vide order dated 04.03.2022, the said Review Petition was dismissed. The order passed by the Division Bench was the subject matter of challenge in Special Leave to Appeal Nos.10859-860/2022 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.7.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 and his wife preferred Review Petition No.400/2021. Vide order dated 04.03.2022, the said Review Petition was dismissed. The order passed by the Division Bench was the subject matter of challenge in Special Leave to Appeal Nos.10859-860/2022 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.7.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. Respondent No.1 filed W.P. No.900/2022 challenging the auction sale notice dated 21.12.2021, in respect of property bearing No.12 of Mallasandra Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring about 33.5 guntas which was brought to sale in execution of the award dated 28.4.2017. This Court by order dated 12.04.2022, dismissed the said Writ Petition. 9. Respondent No.1 preferred W.P. No.16968/2022 seeking for quashing of the confirmation of sale dated 30.5.2022 issued by the Assistant Registrar in favour of auction purchasers. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2022, allowed the said Writ Petition. The said order was the subject matter of challenge in W.A. No.1298/2022 by the Petitioner-Society. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 07.02.2023, dismissed the Appeal. However, placing on record the submission of the Petitioner-Society, a direction was issued to the Assistant Registrar to conduct fresh auction and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible not later than three months. 10. Subsequently, the Respondent No.1 preferred Appeal No.89/2023 on 03.04.2023 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT') under Section 70 of the Act challenging the order/award dated 28.04.2017, passed by the 2nd Respondent - Joint Registrar. Along with the said appeal, I.A.1 was filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I.A.2 for stay of the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Joint Registrar and an application to dispense with deposit of 25% of the amount due. The KAT by its order dated 12.04.2023 allowed I.A-I and II and passed the following order: "Ad-Interim Order The IA-1 is hereby allowed and the question of Limitation is kept open ,the appeal is admitted. The IA-II is hereby allowed and impugned order dated:28.04.2017 in dispute No.JRB/MD/356/2016-17 and all subsequent proceedings are hereby stayed till the receipt of lower court records. Issue notice to respondents, communicate copies of appeal, interim applications and copy of the ad-interim order. Call on 25.05.2023." 11. The Petitioner-Society filed an application in I.A.IV under regulation 14 of the KAT Regulations to vacate the ex-parte interim order dated 12.04.2023 and another application in I.A.VII to dismiss the Appeal as not maintainable. Issue notice to respondents, communicate copies of appeal, interim applications and copy of the ad-interim order. Call on 25.05.2023." 11. The Petitioner-Society filed an application in I.A.IV under regulation 14 of the KAT Regulations to vacate the ex-parte interim order dated 12.04.2023 and another application in I.A.VII to dismiss the Appeal as not maintainable. The said applications field by the Society were opposed by Respondent No.1 by filing objections. The KAT vide its order dated 24.08.2023 has dismissed the said applications. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed. 12. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner assailing the orders passed by the Tribunal submits that the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the appeal filed by the 1st Respondent having regard to the orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions. He further submits that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the applications filed by the Petitioner and that the findings recorded by the Tribunal while dismissing the applications are ex-facie contrary to the judgment/s of this Court. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the present writ petition and granting of the relief sought for herein. 13. Per contra, Sri Mahesh Kiran Shetty, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 putforth the following contentions: i) That the deposit made by Respondent No.1 pursuant to the order dated 21.03.2018 passed in W.P. No.12294/2018 and 12344/2018 is to be construed to be in compliance of the condition imposed in the order dated 28.08.2017 passed in W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017 and the same has also been understood by the Society in the said manner. ii) That the award of the 2nd Respondent - Joint Registrar has culminated in the order referring the matter to the Arbitration and hence, the Society is deemed to waived its rights under the award and is not entitled to execute the award. Referring the observations made in the order dated 28.08.2017, passed in W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017, it is submitted that the original lis between the parties not having been adjudicated on its merits, the Respondent No.1 was entitled to invoke the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under the Act to challenge the award/order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent - Joint Registrar which it has done and that the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the appeals and dismissing the applications filed by the Society. iii) That the dismissal of the W.P. No.10232/2020 and the subsequent orders made by the Division Bench with regard to the said writ petition is being misconstrued by the Society so as to take away the right/entitlement of the 1st Respondent to challenge the award/order dated 28.04.2017. iv) The maintainability of the dispute before the Joint Registrar was itself questioned by the 1st Respondent which aspect has not been adjudicated upon and hence, it is necessary for the Tribunal which is the Appellate Forum as provided under the Act to decide the appeal filed by 1st Respondent on its merits. v) The adjudication of the lis between the parties not having been undertaken on its merits. The 1st Respondent is entitled to avail the statutory remedy as provided under the Act. 14. In support of their respective contentions, both the learned counsels relied on various judgments which shall be referred to in the course of this order to the extent that it is necessary for adjudication of the issues that arise for consideration. 15. The submissions made by both the learned counsels have been heard in great detail and the material on record have been perused. The issue that arises for consideration is 'Whether the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the Appeal filed by the 1st Respondent?' 16. In order to adjudicate upon the question that arise for consideration, it is relevant to notice certain findings recorded by this Court in the litigation between the parties. 17. It is relevant to note that the order/award dated 28.04.2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent - Joint Registrar was the subject matter of challenge by the 1st Respondent before this Court in W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017 which was partly allowed vide order dated 28.8.2017. It is relevant to notice certain findings/observations in the said order dated 28.08.2017, which are as follows: Finality attached to the decision of the Registrar regarding the question whether a dispute is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, is not intended to take away the right of the parties to the dispute to avail appellate remedy and to urge the said question while assailing the final order/award to be passed in the matter. Indeed, there is no such prohibition to avail the appellate remedy to assail such an order. ........ Indeed, there is no such prohibition to avail the appellate remedy to assail such an order. ........ In addition, in the instant case, the Joint Registrar has passed an award and has finally disposed of the dispute as per Annexure-S on 28.04.2017. An appeal is provided against such an award as per Section 105 of the Act. Interlocutory order passed on the interlocutory application on 17.12.2016 has merged with the final order dated 28.04.2017 whereunder the dispute has been disposed of by passing an award. Therefore, in the normal circumstances petitioner is required in law to assail the order dated 17.12.2016 and as also the award dated 28.04.2017 by filing an appeal. 13. It is evident from the proceedings and the award passed that though petitioner was represented before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and has filed written statement resisting the claim made against him, he has not led any evidence. It is his grievance that a fair and reasonable opportunity was not given to him to participate in the proceedings and to lead evidence. Therefore, though several contentions are urged on merits, having regard to the nature of the claim and the scope and ambit of the dispute raised before the Joint Registrar, I am of the view that petitioner has to be provided an opportunity to lead evidence by participating in the proceedings. It is only then that the remedy of appeal available to the petitioner would be effective to challenge the award passed on merits. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the various contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the matter deserves to be sent back to the Joint Registrar to provide an opportunity to the petitioner herein to participate in the proceedings by cross-examining the witnesses examined by the Society and also leading his own evidence in the matter. Such recourse has to be adopted in this case as an exception to the general rule of relegating the party to the appellate forum, particularly when a statutory appeal has been provided, because petitioner has to be given an opportunity to lead evidence and participate in the proceedings. However, such a remedy cannot be made use of by the petitioner without putting him on terms. 14. In terms stated above, this writ petition is allowed in part. However, such a remedy cannot be made use of by the petitioner without putting him on terms. 14. In terms stated above, this writ petition is allowed in part. Challenge made to the order passed by respondent no.1 on 17.12.2016 as per Annexure-O is dismissed. The final order passed as per Annexure-S on 28.04.2017 is quashed. Further proceedings initiated in the execution proceedings as per the impugned notice dated 30.05.2017 - Annexure-T are also set aside. It is however made clear that if petitioner fails to deposit the sum of Rs.2 Crores before the respondent-Society within two months from today, and fails to produce a receipt before the Joint Registrar for having deposited such an amount, petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of this order. On such default by the petitioner, the respondent-Society would be entitled to proceed with the execution proceedings to implement the award passed by the respondent no.1 on 28.04.2017 vide Annexure-S. (emphasis supplied) 18. It is clear from the same that despite the availability of alternative remedy of appeal, the 1st Respondent has consciously filed W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017 since the contention regarding jurisdiction was urged and this Court recorded a categorical finding that it was the Appellate Authority that could decide the said matter also. However, it is relevant to note that this Court has at para No.13 held that in order to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, Respondent No.1 ought to have adequately contested the matter before the Joint - Registrar and hence, afforded an opportunity by putting the 1st Respondent on terms. Further, as noticed in para No.14 of the order that the relief sought for was granted by imposing a condition that the petitioner therein, who is the Respondent No.1 herein was required to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores within two months. Further, it was specifically ordered that on failure to make such deposit, 1st Respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the said order. Admittedly, the 1st Respondent did not deposit the said amount of Rs.2 crores as stipulated in the said order and hence, the order/award dated 28.04.2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent - Joint Registrar cannot be construed as having been set aside by virtue of the said order dated 28.08.2017. 19. Admittedly, the 1st Respondent did not deposit the said amount of Rs.2 crores as stipulated in the said order and hence, the order/award dated 28.04.2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent - Joint Registrar cannot be construed as having been set aside by virtue of the said order dated 28.08.2017. 19. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.1 that by virtue of the compliance of the interim order dated 21.3.2018 passed in W.P. Nos.12294/2018 and 12344/2018 by the 1st Respondent, the same is understood as being in compliance of the condition imposed in the order dated 28.08.2017 passed in W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017. In order to consider the said contention, as also the contention regarding finality of the order passed in W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017 it is relevant to note the findings recorded by this Court in W.P. No.10232/2020 and in the subsequent orders made consequent to dismissal of the said writ petition. 20. The relevant portions of the order dated 18.11.2020 passed in W.P. No.10232/2020 are extracted below for ready reference: 12. In the conspectus of the facts of this case, the point that arises for consideration is whether the statutory order passed by the JRCS stood obviated simultaneously with the matter being referred to arbitration? 13. Principal argument of Shri. Raghavan is that with the appointment of Arbitrator, the order passed by the JRCS was rendered inexecutable and thus there is no executable order against petitioners to recover any amount. Therefore, first petitioner is entitled for cancellation of the sale deed and refund of Rs.2 crores. 14. The benefit of order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.Ps. No.26288-328/2018 could have ensured to first petitioner's benefit, only if he had complied with the condition of depositing Rs.2 crores within two months from the date of the order. Admittedly first petitioner has defaulted in fulfilling this condition. On the other hand, first petitioner filed an I.A. for extension of time on March 15, 2018, after lapse of nearly six months. 15. An order passed by JRCS under Section 70 of the Act is a statutory order and its effect can be nullified only if it is set-aside in the manner known to law. It could be either in an appeal provided in the statute or in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution or in writ proceedings. 15. An order passed by JRCS under Section 70 of the Act is a statutory order and its effect can be nullified only if it is set-aside in the manner known to law. It could be either in an appeal provided in the statute or in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution or in writ proceedings. There is no other proceeding other than the writ petition in W.Ps. No.26288-328/2017 in which the orders passed by the JRCS were challenged. Due to first petitioner's default, the orders passed by the JRCS has remained undisturbed. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that there is no executable order against the petitioners, has no substance. 16. The first prayer made by the petitioners is to direct the JRCS and the Recovery Officer to restitute the properties belonging to the first petitioner sold in public auction. This prayer cannot be granted for two reasons. Firstly, because the sale has been effected pursuant to a valid and executable statutory order passed by the JRCS. Secondly, ......... 17. The second prayer is for a direction to the Society to refund Rs. 2 crores. Petitioners are not entitled for this relief also for two reasons. Firstly, because, first petitioner has paid the said amount voluntarily as recorded by this Court in its order dated March 21, 2018 in W.P. No. 12294/2018 and connected matters filed by petitioner's wife challenging the proposed auction to sell her property. Secondly,....... (emphasis supplied) 21. The relevant portions of order dated 13.12.2021 passed in W.A. No.703/2020 is as follows: 5. The appellant No.1 deposited a sum of Rs.2 Crores in compliance of the order dated 21.03.2018 and filed a compliance affidavit on 23.04.2018. It is pertinent to note that a deposit of Rs.2 Crores was made by the appellant No.1 in compliance of the interim order passed in the petition by appellant No.2 namely the wife. However, the appellant No.1 did not deposit the amount as directed vide order dated 28.08.2017 passed in W.P.No.26288-328/2017. 11. ........ Admittedly, the appellant No.1 did not deposit an amount of Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the conditional order passed in the writ petition bearing No.26288-328/2017 dated 28.08.2017 did not enure to the benefit of the appellants and therefore, in terms of the liberty granted therein, the award dated 28.04.2017 passed by JRCS was executable. 11. ........ Admittedly, the appellant No.1 did not deposit an amount of Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the conditional order passed in the writ petition bearing No.26288-328/2017 dated 28.08.2017 did not enure to the benefit of the appellants and therefore, in terms of the liberty granted therein, the award dated 28.04.2017 passed by JRCS was executable. It is pertinent to note that the award dated 28.04.2017 has not been set aside and therefore, the same binds the appellants. (emphasis supplied) 22. It is relevant to note that the Review Petition No.400/2021 filed to review the order passed in the Writ Appeal No.703/2020 was dismissed. The SLA (C) Nos.10859-860/2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been withdrawn as is forthcoming from the order dated 22.07.2022. It is further relevant to note that the Petitioner preferred W.P. No.900/2022 challenging the execution proceedings initiated by the Society and auction by the Recovery Officer in bringing certain properties to sale. This Court vide order dated 12.04.2022 while dismissing the Writ Petition held as follows: It is evident that the petitioner who has suffered an award in a sum of more than Rs.20 Crores is desperately trying to forestall the execution proceedings. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Udaya Holla, the petitioner is estopped from contending that the award could not have been passed against him, since that question having been raised at the hands of the petitioner is answered against him by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. (emphasis supplied) 23. Writ Petition No.16968/2022 has been filed by the Respondent No.1 challenging the confirmation of sale dated 30.05.2022. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2022 has allowed the Writ petition on the ground that the auction was conducted on 03.02.2022 and the deposit of the entire bid amount was made on 25.05.2022 beyond the period of 45 days which was held to be contrary to Rule 38(2)(i) of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Rules. Hence, on the said ground, confirmation of the sale was set aside and the Division Bench vide order dated 07.02.2023 passed in W.A. No.1298/2022 refused to interfere with that order but directed the Assistant Commissioner and Recovery Officer to conduct fresh auction and conclude the same within three months. 24. Hence, on the said ground, confirmation of the sale was set aside and the Division Bench vide order dated 07.02.2023 passed in W.A. No.1298/2022 refused to interfere with that order but directed the Assistant Commissioner and Recovery Officer to conduct fresh auction and conclude the same within three months. 24. It is clear from the findings recorded by this Court as noticed in paras 20, 21 and 22 hereinabove that the contention of the Respondent No.1 regarding the finality of the order/award dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Joint Registrar was specifically urged in W.P.No.10232/2020 and a categorical finding with regard to the same has been recorded at paras 14 and 15 of the order dated 18.11.2020. It is clear and forthcoming from the finding recorded at para 15 of the said order dated 18.11.2020 that this Court has specifically noticed and held that due to the default of the Petitioner therein who is the Respondent No.1 herein, the order of the Joint Registrar has remained undisturbed, which is validly being executed by the Society. Further, the Division Bench has in its order dated 13.12.2021 has also recorded a finding at para 5 and 11 regarding the same. The said contention was also putforth in W.P.No.900/2022 and a finding regarding the same has been recorded by this Court, vide its order dated 12.04.2022 as noticed at para 22 hereinabove. Hence, it is not open to the Respondent No.1 to once again putforth the said contention in the present writ petition. It is also relevant to note that the order of the Arbitral Tribunal terminating the arbitration proceedings was passed on 09.05.2020 i.e., prior to the decision in W.P.No.10232/2020 which was decided by this Court on 18.11.2020. 25. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for 1st Respondent that an application for extension of time was filed in I.A.1/2018 in W.P No.26288/2017 and that the deposit of Rs.2 crores that was offered to be made by the 1st Respondent in W.P. Nos.12294-12344/2018, filed by the wife of 1st Respondent which has been noticed in the interim order dated 21.03.2018, it is relevant to note that the order dated 28.08.2017 passed in W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017 has not been varied or modified by any subsequent order passed by this Court. Further, it is clear that the interim order dated 21.03.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.12294-12344/2018 was granted in view of Respondent No.3 therein who is the 1st Respondent herein having volunteered to deposit the sum of Rs.2 crores. 26. The Tribunal vide its order dated 24.08.2023 in Co-Op.Appeal No.89/2023 while dismissing I.As.4 and 7 has recorded the following findings: "9. ......However, the Hon'ble High court has never observed that the appellant is remediless and in the very same order observes in Para 15 of the order in WP.No.10232/2020, the relevant portion reads as below: "15. An order passed by JRCS under Section 70 of the Act is a statutory order and its effect can be nullified only if it is set aside in the manner known to law. It could be either in an appeal provided in the statue or in judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution or in Writ Proceedings........." 10. The Hon'ble High Court has observed thus and has never taken away the appeal remedy available to the appellant..... 11. ........Hence, the Hon'ble High Court in WP.No. 10232/2020 never closed the doors on the Appellant with regards to the other remedies that are available under the Statute. In the orders/judgments of the Hon'ble High Court there was no adjudication on the merits and demerits of the impugned order. In fact the Hon'ble High Court in WP.No.26288/2017 in clear terms has held that the impugned order is passed without providing opportunity and against the principles of natural justice. When such being the case, the impugned order has to be at least adjudicated by one forum or the Courts...... 12. Hence in our opinion legality or otherwise of the impugned order requires consideration at the hands of this Tribunal since Appeal under Section 105 of the Act is a statutory appeal which cannot be curtailed. It is pertinent to note that the Appellant's claim has never been adjudicated before any forum." (emphasis supplied) 27. Further, the contentions of the Society were rejected by the Tribunal for the following reasons: i) That the impugned order never challenged except in W.P. No.26288/2017 which ended with the parties being referred to arbitration. ii) Though Writ Petition No.10232/2020 has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability of the prayer, the doors of the appellants with regard to the statutory appeal available under the statute has never been closed. ii) Though Writ Petition No.10232/2020 has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability of the prayer, the doors of the appellants with regard to the statutory appeal available under the statute has never been closed. iii) When the appellant availed the statutory remedy of appeal, it cannot be said that the appeal is not maintainable since none of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court create a bar on the statutory right of appeal under the Act. 28. It is relevant to note that 1st Respondent preferred W.P.No.26288/2017 challenging the order/award dated 28.04.2017. It is forthcoming from the order dated 20.08.2017, passed in the sad Writ Petition that the 1st Respondent has consciously not availed the statutory right of appeal as provided under the Act and has filed the said Writ Petition. The said aspect of the matter is specifically noticed in para Nos.9 and 10 of the said order dated 28.08.2017 and having regard to the fact that 1st Respondent had not had an opportunity to cross examine the witness and this Court having recorded a finding that relegating the 1st Respondent to avail the statutory remedy without effectively contesting the proceedings before the Joint Registrar would not be effective, set aside the order/award dated 28.04.2017. However, it was specifically ordered that if the 1st Respondent herein failed to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores within two months, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the order. It was further specifically ordered that if there was default by the Respondent No.1, the Society would be entitled to proceed with the execution proceedings to implement the award dated 28.04.2017. Admittedly, the 1st Respondent did not deposit the sum of Rs.2 crores within two months of the said order and hence, admittedly, 1st respondent has defaulted in compliance with the said condition, as a result of which, he was not entitled to the benefit of the said order and the Society was entitled to proceed with the execution proceeding. Further, the deposit made by Respondent No.1 pursuant to the interim order dated 21.3.2018 passed in W.P. No.12294 and 12344/2018 was made voluntarily and not in compliance of the order dated 20.8.2017 passed in W.P. No.26288/2017. 29. Further, the deposit made by Respondent No.1 pursuant to the interim order dated 21.3.2018 passed in W.P. No.12294 and 12344/2018 was made voluntarily and not in compliance of the order dated 20.8.2017 passed in W.P. No.26288/2017. 29. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the KAT at para No.9 of its order has only extracted a portion of the finding recorded in para No.15 of the order dated 18.11.2020 passed in W.P. No.10232/2020 by this Court. If the entire portion of the para No.15 of the said order is noticed, a categorical finding has been recorded that the order of the Joint Registrar having been challenged and the 1st Respondent herein having committed default of the condition imposed, the order of the 1st Respondent has remained undisturbed. 30. Hence it is clear that the Respondent No.1 having elected to challenge the order/award dated 28.04.2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent - Joint Registrar in W.P. Nos.26288-328/2017 and the said writ petition having been allowed wherein a specific condition was imposed requiring 1st Respondent herein to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores within two months and the said order itself having specifically stipulated that in default of 1st Respondent making such deposit, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the order of this Court, further, making it clear that the Society would be entitled to proceed to the executing proceedings to implement the award and the 1st Respondent having admittedly not having complied with the condition imposed in the said order dated 28.08.2017, the 1st Respondent cannot subsequently be permitted to avail the statutory remedy as provided under the Act. 31. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies on the following judgments: 31.1 The case of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. v. S.C.Sekar, (2009) 2 SCC 784 to contend that the Respondent No.1 is indulging in forum shopping and the same is required to be condemned. 31.2 The case of India Awake for Transparency v. UoI., Ministry of Corporate Affairs, ILR 2021 KAR 5643 to contend that repeated filing of writ petitions and approaching different Courts for the same relief amounts to forum shopping and contempt of Court. 31.3. The case of Baradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) 1 SCC 446 to contend that the rulings of the High Court are binding on the subordinate Courts and the Tribunals and disobedience amounts to contempt of Court. 31.3. The case of Baradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) 1 SCC 446 to contend that the rulings of the High Court are binding on the subordinate Courts and the Tribunals and disobedience amounts to contempt of Court. 31.4 The case of National Textile Corporation Ltd., (M.P) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 216 CTR (MP) 153 to contend that the Tribunal is bound to follow the judgments of jurisdictional High Court and it is not permissible for the Tribunal to comment upon the manner in which a particular decision is rendered. 31.5 The case of Dilip S.Dahanukar & Ors., v. Padam Kumar Khaitan Advocate & State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cri LJ 1569 to contend that the question which had already been gone into in a proceeding before the High Court under the Companies Act cannot be made subject matter of dispute by loding a criminal complaint under the Act or the Penal Code. 32. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 relies on the following judgments: 32.1 The case of Khoday Distillerties Ltd., v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., Order dated 1.3.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.2432/2019 is with regard to merger of orders; 32.2 In the case of Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balakrishna Lulla, Order dated 16.10.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.8731/2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a question whether an arbitrator appointed by consent of the parties could subsequently be substituted. 32.3 In the case of Neeta Lalithkumar Sanghavi & Anr., v. Bakulaben Dharmadas Sanghavi & Ors., Order dated 12.2.2019 passed in Arbitration Petition No.626/2017 by High Court of Judicature At Bombay a Co-ordinate Bench of Bombay High Court was considering a case wherein sole arbitrator had terminated the arbitration proceeding since the sole claimant expired and his heirs were not brought on record, it was held that the termination of arbitral proceedings has not taken place by virtue of passing any final arbitral award. 33. A detailed reference to the aforementioned case laws is not required in view of the finding recorded herein above in the facts of the present case. 34. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Tribunal clearly erred in entertaining the petition filed by the 1st Respondent and in dismissing I.A. No.4 and I.A. No.7 filed by the Petitioner. The aspect regarding binding nature of the award has been considered in the order dated 18.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.10232/2020. 34. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Tribunal clearly erred in entertaining the petition filed by the 1st Respondent and in dismissing I.A. No.4 and I.A. No.7 filed by the Petitioner. The aspect regarding binding nature of the award has been considered in the order dated 18.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.10232/2020. This Court has specifically recorded a finding that the prayer made in the said writ petition to restitute the properties sold in public auction could not be granted for two reasons. The first one being that it was made pursuant to a valid and executable order passed by the Joint-Registrar. The Tribunal clearly mis-directed itself in merely noticing the 2nd reason while dismissing the applications filed by the Society. The said finding of the Tribunal is ex-facie erroneous and liable to be set aside. Hence the question framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 35. In view of the above the relief sought for in the writ petition is liable to be granted. Hence, the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) Order dated 24.08.2013 passed in Co-Op. Appeal No.89/2023 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru is set aside. iii) I.A. No.4 and I.A. No.7 filed by the Petitioner in Appeal No.89/2023 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal are allowed. iii) The Appeal No.89/2023 filed by the 1st Respondent on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru is dismissed as being not maintainable.