Telangana High Court
WA/1374/2006 of N. Hemalatha W/o Durga Prasad, Vs AP Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam rep.by its on 29 December 2006
JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.1374 of 2006 Between: N. Hemalatha … Appellant And A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, Rep., by its Chairman and two others … Respondents ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for the appellants : Shri
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVIAND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDYWrit Appeal No.1374 of 2006
Between:N. Hemalatha
… Appellant
And
A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam,Rep., by its Chairman and two others … Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
::JUDGMENT::
Counsel for the appellants : Shri Peri Prabhakar for Shri V. Venkataramana December 29, 2006
Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ
This appeal is directed against order dated 20-10-2006 passedby the learned Single Judge in WPMP No. 30742 of 2006, wherebyhe stayed the execution proceedings in case No. 18753/2000-01dated 23-04-2001 and auction notice in CEP No. 5309/2001-02dated 05-03-2003 pending with Special Cadre Deputy Registrar –Officer on Special Duty, District Cooperative Central Band Limited,Kakinada, East Godavari District subject to the condition that thepetitioner (appellant herein) deposits half of the amount due as ondate within six weeks.
The appellant is a member of Gandepalli Primari AgriculturalCooperative Credit Society Limited, Gandepalli, East GodavariDistrict (for short, ‘the society’). She took loan from the society for dripirrigation, tube-well and submergible pump sets by mortgaging herproperty situated in Singarampalem Village of East Godavari District. On account of the appellant’s failure to repay the loan, the societyfiled an application under Section 71 of the Andhra PradeshCooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) before theSpecial Cadre Deputy Registrar-Officer on Special Duty, DistrictCooperative Central Bank Limited, Kakinada. The latter issuedcertificate for recovery of Rs.5,13,147/- with interest @ 18.5% perannum. After some time, the society filed execution petition underRule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative society accepted that applicationand issued sale notice dated 05.03.2003.
The appellant challenged the sale notice by filing an appealunder Section 71 of the Act, which was dismissed by the AndhraPradesh Cooperative Tribunal at Visakhapatnam (for short ‘theTribunal) vide its order dated 16.10.2006. The Tribunal held that therecovery certificate was issued by the Special Cadre DeputyRegistrar after following the relevant statutory provisions and therewas no valid ground to nullify the same. The Tribunal also tookcognisance of the statement made by the appellant’s counsel that hisclient is ready and willing to pay the loan amount if the societyprovides the loan particulars and disposed of the same by making thefollowing observations:
“During the course of arguments, the learned counselfor the appellant submitted that the appellant is ready to paythe loan amount to the society if the society provides the loanparticulars. If the appellant has real intention to pay the overdue loan to the society, the appellant is always at liberty toverify her loan account from the loan ledger register of thesociety at any time during office hours on any working day. Asper Section 119 of the APCS Act, the books of the society areopen to the members of the society.”
In the writ petition filed by her, the appellant challenged therecovery certificate dated 23.4.2001 and auction notice dated05.03.2003. Along with the writ petition, she filed W.P.M.P.No.24083of 2006 for stay of the execution proceedings. The learned SingleJudge entertained the writ petition filed by the appellant and passedconditional stay order to which reference has been madehereinabove.
Shri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant madeefforts to persuade us to modify the order of the learned Single Judgeby stating that the appellant is a poor agriculturist and she is not in aposition to deposit 50% of the total amount due as on date, whichcomes to more than Rs.24,00,000/-.
Conclusion
In our opinion, the interlocutory order passed by the learnedSingle Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warrantinginterference under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. If the amount ofinterest is added to the loan taken by the appellant from the society,then as on today she must be under the liability of Rs.20,00,000/- andwe do not see any reason or justification to deprive the society of itslegitimate right to recover the loan amount together with interest. Thelitigious perseverance of the appellant has paid rich dividend to herso far, inasmuch as she has succeeded in preventing the society frommaking recovery of the amount due. Even the learned Single Judgehas shown extreme compassion by staying the executionproceedings subject to the condition of deposit of 50% amount.
Without commenting further on the merits of the case, we are convinced that the order passed by the learned Single Judge doesnot suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and the appeal is liable to bedismissed with costs. Ordered accordingly. The appellant shall paycosts of Rs.5,000/- to the society.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ appeal, WAMP No. 2877 of2006 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed.
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
December 29, 2006Ks/ksld