Madras High Court
N.Rajasekaran vs The Director Of Handlooms And ... on 6 June, 2023
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
and
WMP(MD)No.9123 of 2016
N.Rajasekaran ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director of Handlooms and Textiles,
Kuralagam,Chennai – 600 108.
2.The General Manager,
The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Spinning Mills,
Federation Limited (KH279),
Kuralagam, Chennai – 600 108.
3.The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies,
MV.Natarajan Maaligai,
Door No.170,
Periyar EVR Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai.
4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies
cum Managing Director,
Pudukottai District
Co-Operative Spinning Mills Limited,
TR (H97) Aranthangi – 614616.
5.The Managing Director /
Co-operative Sub Registrar,
A363, Virudhunagar Agricultural Products,
Co-operative Marketing Society Limited,
Mallankinaru Road,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to
the impugned order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the 5th
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the
3rd respondent to issue suitable directions to the 5th
respondent to pay the sum of Rs.19,91,089/- (Rupees
Nineteen Lakhs Ninety One Thousand and Eighty Nine Only) to
the petitioner towards interest calculated till April, 2013
as fixed by the arbitrator in arbitration award dated
02.05.2005 in arbitration case number 2 of 2005 confirmed
by this Court by order dated 05.01.2007 in OP.No.533 of
2005 and by order dated 12.04.2013 in OSA No.71 of 2007 and
OSA No.171 of 2007.
For petitioner : Mr.J.Bharathan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Shaji Bino,
Nos.1 to 4 Special Government Pleader
For Respondent :Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
No.5
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the
impugned order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the 5th respondent
and to consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
suitable directions to the 5th respondent to pay the dues
along with interest.
2.The petitioner is a cotton merchant and he is said to
have supplied cotton to the 4th respondent spinning mill
through 5th respondent. However, the 4th respondent did not
make payment for the cotton purchased by them. One Kanniah
Raj, an affected person filed a public interest litigation
before this Court in WP.No.12316 of 1999 for a writ of
mandamus to direct the government to take appropriate steps
to make payment due by the 4th respondent spinning mill to
the cotton merchants with 18% interest per annum from the
date of outstanding till the date of realisation. This
public interest litigation was entertained by this Court
and on 12.10.1999 a Division Bench of this Court has passed
an order directing the government to make substantial
payment. Accordingly partial amount has been paid on
installments and thereafter, this Court has also appointed
an Arbitrator in this issue for settlement of the dues by
the Government and the spinning mill to the cotton
merchants. The Arbitrator as directed by the Government has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
conducted arbitration and also passed an award on
02.05.2005, directing the 4th respondent to pay 40% of the
balance amount with interest @ 18% per annum for the cotton
supplied by the petitioner and others. The Arbitrator has
also fixed the interest payable by the 4th respondent to the
5th respondent up to 21.06.2002 @ Rs.9,06,689/- and directed
the government to pay the further interest @ 18% per annum
under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996 till the actual date of payment.
3.The government and the Co-Operative Spinning Mills
have challenged the award in OP.No.533 of 2005 before this
Court and the said OP was dismissed by order dated
05.01.2007. Challenging the same the appeal preferred by
the government in OSA.No.71 of 2007 and the appeal
preferred by the 4th respondent in OSA.No.71 of 2007 was
dismissed by the Court.
4.Though award has been passed by the Arbitrator,
the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 4th respondent has paid
the dues to the 5th respondent on 01.10.2008 towards the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
interest payable by the 4th respondent as fixed by the
Arbitrator with subsequent interest till the date of
payment. Though the 5th respondent has received the amount
from the government has failed to pay the same to the
petitioner and therefore, this petitioner filed a
writ petition before this Court in WP(MD)No.6547 of 2014
for a writ of mandamus for a direction to the 5 th respondent
to pay the balance amount together with interest to the
petitioner herein as per the award passed by the Arbitrator
on 02.05.2005. This Court by order dated 16.04.2014 has
disposed of the said writ petition directing the 5th
respondent to consider the representation to the petitioner
dated 01.04.2004 in the light of the judgment passed in
OSA.No.71 of 2007 within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter the 5th
respondent has passed the impugned order on 02.06.2014 that
there is no due payable by the 5th respondent to the
petitioner.
5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner by relying on
the award passed by the Arbitrator has made his submissions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
that the 5th respondent has received the due amount from the
4th respondent, but the 5th respondent has failed to pay the
amount to the petitioner.
6.The learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent
submits that the at the outset the writ petition is not
maintainable in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Full Bench in Marappan Case. The petitioner is the Member
of the 5th respondent society and if he is having any
grievance with regard to the transaction, he is having
remedy before the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operatives under
Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act.
7.The learned Counsel further submits that the sale
consideration was paid to the petitioner periodically.
As per the audit report, the 5th respondent was liable to
pay the sum of Rs.1,81,303.36 to the petitioner towards the
sale consideration. This respondent has paid a sum of
Rs.63,206/- vide cheque No.1418 dated 19.02.2001.
Subsequently the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.45,147.71
through the cheque No.1424 dated 09.03.2001. Thereafter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
the petitioner was subsequently paid Rs.71,978.10 by cheque
No.6166 dated 26.07.2002. All the above cheques were
encashed and entire amount and as such the entire
outstanding was paid to the petitioner as on 26.07.2002
itself. As per the audit report for the financial year 2002
-2003, the last payment was made to the petitioner in the
above financial year. In the audit report for the year
2002- 2003 it was not shown any balance to be paid to the
petitioner. Therefore, as per the records and audit report,
the entire amount was paid to the petitioner in the year
2002 itself.
8.This Court considered the rival submissions and
perused the materials placed on record.
9.The preliminary objections raised by the 5th
respondent can be rejected on the ground that the liability
has been fixed pursuant to the orders of this Court in a
public interest litigation in WP(MD)No.12316 of 1999 and
further direction was issued by this Court in WP(MD)No.
6547 of 2014. The 5th respondent has not taken any such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
stand in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioner
has made claim pursuant to the award passed by the
Arbitrator appointed as directed by this court in WP(MD)No.
12316 of 1999. This order was also tested in OP.No.533 of
2005 and also in OSA.No.71 of 2007, wherein this Court has
held as against the government and society that the 5th
respondent is liable to pay the amount as directed by the
Arbitrator in his award dated 02.05.2005. Though the
respondents submit that the payments have been made, they
have not paid the subsequent interest amount as directed
by the Arbitrator and therefore, this writ petition is
allowed with a direction to the 5th respondent to pay the
interest as directed by the Arbitrator in his award dated
02.05.2005. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
06.06.2023
dsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
To
1.The Director of Handlooms and Textiles,
Kuralagam,
Chennai – 600 108.
2.The General Manager,
The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Spinning Mills,
Federation Limited (KH279),
Kuralagam,
Chennai – 600 108.
3.The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies,
MV.Natarajan Maaligai,
Door No.170,
Periyar EVR Road,
Kilpauk,
Chennai.
4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies
cum Managing Director,
Pudukottai District
Co-Operative Spinning Mills Limited,
TR (H97) Aranthangi – 614616.
5.The Managing Director /
Co-operative Sub Registrar,
A363, Virudhunagar Agricultural Products,
Co-operative Marketing Society Limited,
Mallankinaru Road,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
WP(MD)No.10959 of 2014
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
