Karnataka High Court
Kallappa Yashwant Patil vs Lokmanya Co-Operative Credit Society ... on 16 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
MFA No.24148 of 2013
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
MFA No.24149 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24148 OF 2013 (AA)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24107 OF 2013
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24149 OF 2013
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24148 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KALLAPPA YASHWANT PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
APPELLANTS NO. 2 AND 3 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF
DECEASED APPELLANT NO.1 AS PER ORDER DATED
31.02.2024.
1A. SMT. MADHAVI W/O. CHETAN CHAVAN PATIL,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER,
R/O. H.NO. 302, PATIL GALLI,
VADAGAON, MANGAI TEMPLE,
BELAGAVI-590005.
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB DESHNUR
DESHNUR Date:
2024.02.23
1B. SMT. DHANASHRI W/O. VINIT KOPARDE,
16:52:45 +0530
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. CTS NO. 630 S-2,
AASHRAYA VIHAR APPARTMENT,
RT ROAD, TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI-590006.
1C. SMT. TRUPTI W/O. VISHAL BANDODEKAR,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. H.NO. 1216, KONWAL GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
LRs OF DECEASED APPELLANT NO.1 ARE BROUGHT ON
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
MFA No.24148 of 2013
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
MFA No.24149 of 2013
RECORD AS APPELLANTS NO.1A TO 1C
AS PER ORDER DATED 31.01.2024.
2. SRI. RAVIRAJ KALLAPPA PATIL
AGE: 29 YEARS,
R/O. "YASHWANT", PLOT NO.119,
6TH CROSS, SADASHIV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. LAXMI KALLAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. "YASHWANT", PLOT NO.119,
6TH CROSS, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
4. MRS. SAROJINI DASHARATH PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR
4A. SRI. SUNIL S/O. DASHRATH PATIL,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC.
R/O. # PLOT. NO. 22,
R.S. NO.48/1E, SHAHU NAGAR,
KANGRALI (BK), BELAGAVI-590010.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHUVEER SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
LOKMANYA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT
SOCIETY LTD., (MULTI STATE),
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICER/JHO,
AT PLOT NO.30/2/A/1, BHAGYA NAGAR,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI (KARNATAKA STATE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHRORIZED OFFICER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANGARAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD: 03.07.2013 PASSED IN ARBITRATION
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
MFA No.24148 of 2013
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
MFA No.24149 of 2013
CASE NO.92/2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
BELAGAVI, CONFIRMING THE ARBITRATION AWARD DTD. 9/8/2010
PASSED BY PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR IN
ARB/BGM/LOK/TLK/126/08, IN THE INTEREST AND EQUITY.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24107 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAXMI KALLAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: "YASHWANT", PLOT NO.119,
6TH CROSS, SADASHIV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.
2. SRI. KALLAPPA YESHWANT PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs
APPELLANTS NO. 1 AND 4 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF
DECEASED APPELLANT NO.2 AS PER ORDER DATED
07.02.2024.
2A. SMT. MADHAVI W/O. CHETAN CHAVAN PATIL,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER,
R/O. H.NO. 302, PATIL GALLI,
VADAGAON, MANGAI TEMPLE,
BELAGAVI-590005.
2B. SMT. DHANASHRI W/O. VINIT KOPARDE,
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. CTS NO. 630 S-2,
AASHRAYA VIHAR APPARTMENT,
RT ROAD, TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI-590006.
2C. SMT. TRUPTI W/O. VISHAL BANDODEKAR,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. H.NO. 1216, KONWAL GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
LRs OF DECEASED APPELLANT NO.2 ARE BROUGHT ON
RECORD AS APPELLANTS NO.2A TO 2C
AS PER ORDER DATED 07.02.2024.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
MFA No.24148 of 2013
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
MFA No.24149 of 2013
3. MRS. SAROJINI DASHARATH PATIL
AGE: 66 YEARS,
R/O. # PLOT. NO. 22, 2ND CROSS,
SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.
4. SRI. RAVIRAJ KALLAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
R/O. "YASHWANT", PLOT NO.119,
6TH CROSS, SADASHIV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHUVEER SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
LOKMANYA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT
SOCIETY LTD., (MULTI STATE).
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICER/JHO,
AT PLOT NO.30/2/A/1, BHAGYA NAGAR,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI (KARNATAKA STATE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHRORIZED OFFICER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANGARAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD: 03.07.2013 PASSED IN ARBITRATION
CASE NO.93/2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
BELAGAVI, CONFIRMING THE ARBITRATION AWARD DTD. 9/8/2010
PASSED BY PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR IN
ARB/BGM/LOK/TLK/120/08, IN THE INTEREST AND EQUITY.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
MFA No.24148 of 2013
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
MFA No.24149 of 2013
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24149 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KALLAPPA YASHWANT PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
APPELLANTS NO. 3 ARE TREATED AS LR OF DECEASED
APPELLANT NO.1 AS PER ORDER DATED 31.02.2024.
1A. SMT. LAXMI W/O. KALLAPPA PATIL,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.PLOT NO.119, 7TH CROSS,
SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001.
1B. SMT. MADHAVI W/O. CHETAN CHAVAN PATIL,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER,
R/O. H.NO. 302, PATIL GALLI,
VADAGAON, MANGAI TEMPLE,
BELAGAVI-590005.
1C. SMT. DHANASHRI W/O. VINIT KOPARDE,
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. CTS NO. 630 S-2,
AASHRAYA VIHAR APPARTMENT,
RT ROAD, TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI-590006.
1D. SMT. TRUPTI W/O. VISHAL BANDODEKAR,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. H.NO. 1216, KONWAL GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
LRs OF DECEASED APPELLANT NO.1 ARE BROUGHT ON
RECORD AS APPELLANTS NO.1A TO 1D
AS PER ORDER DATED 31.01.2024.
2. MRS. SAROJINI DASHARATH PATIL,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR
SRI. SUNIL S/O. DASHRATH PATIL,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
MFA No.24148 of 2013
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
MFA No.24149 of 2013
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC.
R/O. # PLOT. NO. 22,
R.S. NO.48/1E, SHAHU NAGAR,
KANGRALI (BK), BELAGAVI-590010.
3. SRI. RAVIRAJ KALLAPPA PATIL
AGE: 29 YEARS,
R/O. "YASHWANT", PLOT NO.119,
6TH CROSS, SADASHIV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHUVEER SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
LOKMANYA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT
SOCIETY LTD., (MULTI STATE).
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICER/JHO,
AT PLOT NO.30/2/A/1, BHAGYA NAGAR,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI (KARNATAKA STATE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHRORIZED OFFICER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANGARAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD: 03.07.2013 PASSED IN ARBITRATION
CASE NO.94/2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
BELAGAVI, CONFIRMING THE ARBITRATION AWARD DTD. 9/8/2010
PASSED BY PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR IN
ARB/BGM/LOK/TLK/70/08, IN THE INTEREST AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
MFA No.24148 of 2013
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
MFA No.24149 of 2013
JUDGMENT
These three appeals arise out of the common
judgment passed in Arbitration Case No.92/2012 passed
by the Principal District Judge, Belagavi dated 03.07.2013
in Arbitration Case Nos.92/2012, 93/2012 and 94/2012.
2. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for the
disposal of these appeals are as under:
3. First Plaintiff namely Kallappa Yashwant Patil and
Laxmi Kallappa Patil , who are plaintiffs in arbitration case
Nos. 92/2012, 93/2012 and 94/2012 availed loan from
the defendant Lokmanya Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,
and became defaulters. Loan agreement contain a clause
that in order to resolve the dispute between the society
and its borrower, the parties were required to resort to the
arbitration. Accordingly, arbitration proceedings were
initiated and award came to be passed. The award
amount in arbitration case and the numbers are tabulated
as under:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
Sl. Arbitration Award Date Award
No. Case No.ARB/BG amount(Rs.)
M/LOK/TLK
1 92/2012 126/08 09.08.2010 7,55,736-00
2 93/2012 120/08 09.08.2010 7,60,558-00
3 94/2012 70/08 09.08.2010 7,67,711-00
4. Being aggrieved by the same, appellants herein filed
WP Nos.62438/2011, 62422/2011 and 62373/2011 on the
file of his court.
5. Those writ petitions were dismissed by the order
dated 20.09.2011 by passing a common order as under:
"ORDER
Common question of law and fact arise for
consideration in these petitions, hence with
the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, the petitions are clubbed, finally heard
and disposed of by this order.
2. These petitions are filed by debtors
calling in question the arbitration awards
passed by the Arbitrator under Section 84 of
the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act,
2002, for short 'Act'. Subsection (5) of Section
84 of the Act reads thus:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
"84. Reference of disputes:
(1) xxxx
(2) xxxx
(3) xxxx
(4) xxxx
(5) Save as otherwise provided under this Act,
the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply
to all arbitration under this Act as if the
proceedings for arbitration were referred for
settlement or decision under the provisions of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
In that view of the matter, petitioners have
an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing
an application under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before
the Civil Court to set- aside the award.
Therefore, I decline to interfere.
Petitions are ordered accordingly."
6. Pertinently, writ petitioners who are the appellants
herein did not seek any liberty when the writ petitions
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
were disposed of to exclude the time spent in writ petition
in challenging the award by resorting to Section 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963.
7. Thereafter, the appellants herein filed arbitration
case (suits) which are numbered as 92/2012, 93/2012 and
94/2012 dated 31.01.2012 with an application to seek
condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation act.
8. In pursuance of the summons/notices issued in the
said arbitration cases, defendant appeared and filed
written statement and also objections to IA No.1.
9. Learned Prl. District Judge has heard the parties in
detail both on application under Section 5 of the limitation
Act and also on the merits of the matter and passed
common order as under:
"ORDER
I.A.No.I filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act in all the suits are hereby
rejected.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
The suits filed by the plaintiffs challenging
the awards dated 09.08.2010 passed by the
arbitrator in No.ARB/
BGM/LOK/TLK/126/2008,ARB/BGM/LOK/TLK/1
20/2008 and ARB/BGM/LOK/TLK/70/2008 are
hereby, on merits, dismissed and the awards
passed by the Arbitrator are hereby
confirmed.
Keep the copy of this common judgment in
Arbitration Case No.93 of 2012 and 94 of
2012."
10. Being aggrieved by the same, defaulters who are
plaintiffs are before this court in these appeals.
11. Sri.Raghuveer Sattigeri, learned counsel representing
Sri.Chetan Munnoli reiterating the grounds urged in the
appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the
learned Prl.District Judge erred in law in dismissing the
application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act ignoring
the fact that appellants have availed the remedy of writ
jurisdiction in challenging the very jurisdiction of he
arbitrator. Therefore, time spent in the writ proceedings
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
should have been excluded by resorting to Section 14 of
the Limitation Act and without excluding the period spent
in writ petition, the suit filed by the appellants herein has
resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing
the appeal.
12. In support of his arguments, he places reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Goa Vs. Western Builders, reported in (2006)
6 SCC 239, he invited the attention of this court to the
paragraph No.25, wherein it is held as under:
"25. Therefore, in the present context also it
is very clear to us that there are no two
opinions in the matter that the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 does not expressly
exclude the applicability of Section 14 of the
Limitation Act. The prohibitory provision has
to be construed strictly. It is true that the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 intended
to expedite commercial issues expeditiously.
It is also clear in the Statement of Objects and
Reasons that in order to recognise economic
reforms the settlement of both domestic and
international commercial disputes should be
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
disposed of quickly so that the country's
economic progress be expedited. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons also
nowhere indicates that Section 14 of the
Limitation Act shall be excluded. But on the
contrary, intendment of the legislature is
apparent in the present case as Section 43 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
applies the Limitation Act, 1963 as a whole. It
is only by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section
29 of the Limitation Act that its operation is
excluded to that extent of the area which is
covered under the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996. Our attention was also invited to
the various decisions of this Court interpreting
sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation
Act with reference to other Acts like the
Representation of the People Act or the
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code
where separate period of limitation has been
prescribed. We need not overburden the
judgment with reference to those cases
because it is very clear to us by virtue of sub-
section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act
that the provisions of the Limitation Act shall
stand excluded in the Act of 1996 to the
extent of area which is covered by the Act of
1996. In the present case under Section 34 by
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
virtue of sub-section (3) only the application
for filing and setting aside the award a period
has been prescribed as 3 months and delay
can be condoned to the extent of 30 days. To
this extent the applicability of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act will stand excluded but there is
no provision in the Act of 1996 which excludes
operation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
If two Acts can be read harmoniously without
doing violation to the words used therein,
then there is no prohibition in doing so."
13. Per contra, Sri.Krishna Kumar Joshi representing the
counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order
by contending that in the very same judgment of State of
Goa referred supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly
held that Section 5 is no application in view of the Section
29(2) of the Limitation Act and sought for dismissal of the
appeals.
14. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties,
this court has perused the material on record meticulously.
15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the award came to be passed by the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
learned Arbitrator as referred supra in the tabular column
is on 09.08.2010.
16. It is well settled principles of law that the arbitration
Act insofar as Limitation to file appeal is concerned is
stand alone statue and the period of limitation prescribed
for filing the appeal under sub section 3 of the Section 34
of Arbitration Act. Same is prescribed as three months and
delay can be condoned maximum to the extent of 30 days.
In other words, the award that was passed on 09.08.2010
should have been challenged within a maximum period of
120 days on and from 09.08.2010.
17. Admittedly, the writ petition was filed on 19.03.2011.
In other words, the very writ petition filed before this court
challenging the very jurisdiction of the arbitrator is beyond
120 days on and from 09.08.2010 and therefore, the very
writ petition being belated would not be construed as a
valid legal proceeding before the some other forum under
good faith being prosecuted by the appellants.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
18. Further, as rightly contended on behalf of the
respondent, while disposing of the writ petitions by order
dated 20.09.2011 a co-ordinate Bench of this court did not
chose to grant any liberty for the appellants herein to avail
the remedy available under Section 34 of Limitation Act by
excluding time spent in writ jurisdiction.
19. Even if such liberty was granted, since, the writ
petition is itself was beyond the period of 180 days, in
view of the Sub Section (3) of the Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act, the very writ petition cannot be construed
as a challenge to the award.
20. Therefore, any liberty that is granted in the said writ
petition will not and should not accrue to the benefit of
appellants herein in filing a belated suit before the District
Judge in Arbitration case Nos. 92/2012, 93/2012 and
94/2012.
21. Under such circumstances, the application filed under
Section 5 of Limitation Act by the appellants has been
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
rightly rejected by the learned Prl. District Judge as
Section 5 has no application to the Arbitration Act as is
held in the decision State of Goa (supra) relied on by
the appellants itself.
22. Further, since the Section 29 of the Limitation Act
has been amended the same is acting complementary to
the period prescribed in the arbitration Act. Therefore,
general provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act would not
be applicable to the appeals filed under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act before the District Court
23. Since, the suit is beyond the period of 180 days and
the very writ petition was also beyond the period of 180
days instituted by the appellants, the contentions of the
appellants that the Section 14 of Limitation Act, should
have been taken into consideration by the learned trial
judge in the Prl. District Judge in the impugned order
cannot be countenanced in law.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3844
C/W MFA No.24107 of 2013,
24. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeals are merit less and are hereby dismissed.
ii) No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
