[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Shiddheshwar Co-Operative Bank ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2479
WP No. 200725 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 200725 OF 2026 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SHIDDHESHWAR CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
SHRI SHIDDHESHWAR ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
by SACHIN M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, OPP. AMBEDKAR CIRCLE,
VIJAYAPUR.
3. SIDDANAGOUDA AYYANAGOUDA PATIL
S/O LATE AYYANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GABASAVALAGI VILLAGE, SINDAGI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586123.
4. SMT. UMA SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL
W/O SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2479
WP No. 200725 of 2026
HC-KAR
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GABASAVALAGI VILLAGE, SINDAGI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586123.
5. SRI LAKSHMANA YALLAPPA HANDRALA
S/O YALLAPPA HANDRALA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O EWS-187, JALANAGARA,
VIJAYAPURA-586102.
6. SANKANGOUDA DANAPPAGOUDA BIRADAR,
S/O DANAPPAGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GABASAVALAGI VILLAGE, SINDAGI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586123.
7. ARAVIND S/O YAMANAPPA HOSAMANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O PLOT NO.43, NANDINI BADAVANE,
NEAR RENUKACHARYA SCHOOL,
MANAGOOLI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR.
8. BALAPPA S/O RAMANNA PADEKNUR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VIVEK NAGAR (E), OPP BDA OFFICE,
OPP SAI GRAND HOTEL, VIJAYAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R2;
SRI SHIVANANDA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAVI G. MADABHAVI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.09.2025 PASSED IN FILE NO.CO-
OP. APPEAL NO.101/2021 BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
UNDER ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2479
WP No. 200725 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to quash the
impugned order dated 29.09.2025 passed in Cooperative
Appeal No.101/2021 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,
Bengaluru vide Annexure-F.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for the caveator/
respondent No.3.
3. Respondent No.3 herein had filed an appeal
under Section 105 of the Karnataka Cooperative Society
Act, 1959 challenging the award passed by the respondent
No.2 herein dated 04.12.2017 in proceedings bearing
No.DRJ/DDS/198/2017-18. The said appeal has been
allowed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide the
impugned order at Annexure-F dated 29.09.2025.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2479
HC-KAR
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-bank is before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
subsequent to the award dated 04.12.2017 which was
passed by the respondent No.2 herein, the property of the
respondent No.3 herein was brought for sale in an auction
that was held by the petitioner-bank. Respondent Nos.7
and 8 are the successful auction purchasers of the land
belonging to respondent No.3, which was brought for sale
by the petitioner herein. He submits that the appellate
Tribunal has failed to consider the aforesaid aspects of the
matter and has erred in remanding the matter to
respondent No.2, after setting-aside the award dated
04.12.2017.
5. Per contra, learned counsel respondent No.3
submits that the award passed by respondent No.2 dated
04.12.2017 is an ex-parte award. The appellate Tribunal
has taken note of the fact that the respondent No.2 had
violated the principles of natural justice and had passed
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2479
HC-KAR
the award dated 04.12.2017. He submits that the
appellate Tribunal has condoned the delay caused in filing
the appeal vide order dated 08.09.2021 on cost of
Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner has not questioned the said
order and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to now
contend that the subsequent developments in the case
should have been taken into consideration by the appellate
Tribunal. He accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The appeal filed by the respondent No.3 in Co-
operative Appeal No.101/2021 was accompanied with
I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with
the prayer to condone the delay of 1457 days caused in
filing the appeal. The appellate Tribunal by a separate
order dated 08.09.2021, had condoned the aforesaid delay
of 1457 days caused in filing the appeal on payment of
cost of Rs.2,000/- after hearing all the parties to the
appeal. Undisputedly, the said order has not been
questioned by the petitioner herein or by any other parties
and therefore, the order passed by the appellate Tribunal
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2479
HC-KAR
on 08.09.2021 condoning the delay of 1457 days caused
in filing the appeal has attained finality.
7. On the merits of the case, the appellate
Tribunal having found that the respondent No.2 had not
given proper opportunity to the respondent No.3 to
contest the case and had not even recorded the brief note
of the evidence of the bank and the documents which were
relied upon by the bank, had passed an order which is not
in compliance of the requirement of Rule 31A of the
Karnataka Cooperative Society Rules, 1959, has arrived at
a conclusion that the impugned award was bad in law and
the same was passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice. It is under these circumstances, the
appellate Tribunal has set aside the ex-parte award passed
by respondent No.2 dated 04.12.2017 and has remitted
the matter to the respondent No.2 to adjudicate the
dispute afresh strictly on the merits of the case after
granting sufficient opportunity to both parties to defend
their case. The appellate Tribunal taking into consideration
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2479
HC-KAR
the year of the dispute has also directed the respondent
No.2 to expeditiously hear the case and dispose of the
same within an outer limit of six months. The impugned
order has been passed on 29.09.2025 and already more
than five months have now expired. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that, it is not a fit case to be interfered by this
Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the
following order:
i) Writ petition is dismissed.
ii) It is needless to state that the respondent
No.2 shall comply the order passed by the
appellate Tribunal strictly and make
endeavours to dispose of the case within the
time frame as stated in the order impugned
herein.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
CT:PK
