Madras High Court
The Secretary vs Ayyanappillai ... 1St on 22 January, 2025
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6606, 6611, 6613, 6615, 6617, 6621,
7498, 7501, 7506, 7507, 7510 & 7514 of 2023
In C.R.P.(MD)No.1310 of 2023:
The Secretary,
EE 107, Perunkulam Cooperative Rural Bank,
Perunkulam,
Srivaikuntam Taluk,
Thoothukudi. ... Petitioner/1st respondent
vs
1.Ayyanappillai ... 1st Respondent/appellant
2.Sub Registrar of Cooperative Rural Bank,
EE 107, Perunkulam Cooperative Rural Bank,
O/o. the Cooperative Sub Registrar,
Tooveypuram 3rd street,
Thoothukudi. ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.
(CS) No.43 of 2009 dated 27.08.2010 passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Thoothukudi.
For Petitioner
in all C.R.Ps : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For Respondents
in all C.R.Ps
for R1 : Batta due
for R2 : Mr.P.Thambidurai
Government Advocate
*****
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the
impugned judgement and decree dated 27.08.2010 passed by the learned
Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by
invoking Circular in Na.Ka.No.597/2006 CA7, dated 07.07.2006, for waiver
loans received by the respondents, recommendations were sent to the
Committee. However, the Committee has refused to consider the same, since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
the nature of loans granted to the respondents are not agricultural loan.
Therefore, the matter was referred to Arbitration. Claim petitions were filed
on 07.03.2009 before the Arbitrator. In claim petitions, the Arbitrator has
passed awards against the respondents holding that they are liable to pay the
loans availed by them.
3. Aggrieved over the said awards, the respondents filed appeals
before the Principal District Court, Tuticorin and the Principal District Judge,
Tuticorin passed orders setting aside the awards by holding that the loans
obtained by the appellants/respondents are only agricultural loans and
therefore, they are qualified for waiver of loans in terms of the said Circular,
dated 07.07.2006, as they are only short term loans. Aggrieved over the said
judgments, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in all revision petitions
would submit that the loans, which were availed by the respondents, are not
agricultural loans. The said loans were granted against security of agricultural
produce. Therefore, the loans granted for the agricultural purpose against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
security will not fall under the category of waiver. However, he would submit
that the loans were granted only for agricultural purpose.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent in all revison
petitions would submit that on various dates, the first respondents in all
petitions/farmers have filed the applications for loan, i.e., on 06.03.2006,
07.03.2006, 13.03.2006, 16.03.2006, 20.03.2006, 22.03.2006 and 25.03.2006.
All these applications (copy) have been filed before this Court. By referring
to these applications, he would submit that these loans are only agricultural
loans and the loan period is mentioned as five months. Therefore, these loans
are short term loans, which consequently, fall under the purview of the
eligibility criteria prescribed for waiver in the said Circular dated 07.07.2006.
Therefore, without taking into consideration all these aspects, the awards
were passed, against which, the appeals were preferred before the Principal
District Judge, Tuticorin. The Principal District Judge, Tuticorin has rightly
set aside the awards holding that these loans are only agricultural loans and
consequently, the appellants/respondents are entitled to get waiver under the
Circular in Na.Ka.No.597/2006 CA7, dated 07.07.2006. Therefore, he would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
submit that there is no error in the judgment and decree passed by the
Principal District Judge, Tuticorin. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are
liable to be dismissed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent and also
perused the materials available on record.
7. The first respondents herein have filed applications for availing
agricultural loans with the repayment period of five months by virtue of the
applications, dated 06.03.2006, 07.03.2006, 13.03.2006, 16.03.2006,
20.03.2006, 22.03.2006 and 25.03.2006. Subsequently, the loans were
approved and granted.
8. A perusal of the applications would show that the purpose of
availing the loan is only for agricultural. The term has been mentioned as five
months. As these loans are to be granted only to the members, all the
respondents are the members.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
9. Under these circumstances, on 07.07.2006, the Tuticorin District
Central Co-operative Bank issued a circular in Na.Ka.No.597/2006 CA7,
wherein, it is mentioned that short term loans granted for agricultural purpose
also eligible for waiver.
10. In the present cases, the issue that has to be decided is as to
whether the loans which were applied by the respondents/farmers, sanctioned
and granted by the petitioner are agricultural loans or not?
11. In these cases, there is no dispute in the aspect that the loans
were granted for agricultural purpose. The said aspect is also accepted by the
petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
they were granted against the security of agricultural produce. Therefore, the
petitioner is disputing the same.
12. In the said Circular, it has been mentioned that in case of short
term loan, which are issued for the purpose of agricultural, those loans are
eligible for waiver. With that object, the Circular was issued. Therefore, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
Court has to look into the aspect whether the loans were granted for the
agricultural purpose or not.
13. In the said Circular, there is no mention regarding the security.
Therefore, the waiver would apply for both category whether the loans were
granted with security or without security. Ultimately, the purpose of the
Circular is to waive off agricultural loans. Therefore, I am of the considered
view that in the present cases, there is no dispute on the aspect that whether
the present loans are agricultural loans and also short term loans and it was
given only to the members for interest. Hence, I do not find any merit in the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and ultimately, by
virtue of the Circular, dated 07.07.2006, as the loans were short term loans
granted for a period of five months to the respondents, they fall under the
category of short term loan eligibility. Therefore, there is no mention on the
aspect whether the short term loans granted based on security are not eligible
for waiver. If it is a short term loan either under security or without security, it
automatically falls under the eligibility criteria prescribed under the said
Circular, dated 07.07.2006. Therefore, the respondents are eligible to get
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
waiver of loans.
14. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly
highlighted the fact that the Committee has rejected the request of waiver, he
has not produced any document to show that on what ground it was rejected.
Based on the aspect that these loans were granted by obtaining security of
agricultural produce of the applicants, the Committee has rejected their
waiver applications, as they are not eligible to get the waiver. If it is so, as
discussed above, the interpretation given by the Committee is not correct and
that was not the purpose of the Circular, dated 07.07.2006. For all the
reasons afore mentioned, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and ultimately, these Civil Revision
Petitions stand dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by
the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the
event of this Court took a stand in confirming the order of the Principal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
District Judge, Tuticorin or dismissing these petitions, he requested this Court
to pass appropriate orders for the petitioner to send proposal to the Joint
Registrar of Co-op Societies, Tuticorin for forwarding the same to the
Government for the purpose of reimbursement of waiver amount.
16. It is made clear that the petitioner is not stopped from
forwarding any proposal to the Joint Registrar of Co-op Societies, Tuticorin
for reimbursement of waiver amount from the Government.
17. In view of the above, if any proposal is sent, the Joint Registrar
of Co-operative Societies, Tuticorin is directed to forward the same to the
Government for reimbursement of waiver amount within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of the said proposal.
22.01.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
apd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
To
The Principal District Judge,
Tuticorin.
Copy to:
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Tuticorin.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.
apd
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1310 to 1312, 1315 to 1317
& 1477 to 1482 of 2023
22.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
