C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J : - These writ appeals are filed against common order dated 25.8.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.26590, 26591, 26592, 26598 and 26603 of 1999. While Writ Appeal Nos.l670, 1691 and 1713 of 2000 and 9 of 2001 were filed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies/OSD/Arbitrator (for short “the Arbitrator”), the other writ appeals were filed by the Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad (for short “the Bank”).

2. Respondent No.1 in each of these appeals is either a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 or a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. They are admittedly members of the Bank. Respondent No.1 in each of these appeals borrowed huge amounts as loans from the Bank and failed to repay the same. Therefore, the Bank approached the Arbitrator with claim statements for passing awards under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”). When the Arbitrator had entered reference and given notices to respondent No.1, they filed Writ Petition Nos.26590, 26591, 26592, 26598 and 26603 of 1999 in this Court for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Arbitrator from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings. The main plank on which the said writ petitions were filed was that respondent No.1, being either companies or partnership firms, are not eligible to be members of the Bank under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, they are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator under Section 61 of the Act and afortiori the Arbitrator is denuded of the jurisdiction to decide any dispute between respondent No.1 and the Bank. Another question which was raised by respondent No.1 was that since the Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad, being a Bank, the provisions of the Act have no application and that proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 alone are liable to be initiated for recovery of the loans.

3. Having gone into the first question referred to above and decided in favour of respondent No.1 and having regard to the decision on the said question, the learned Single Judge felt it unnecessary to deal with the second question. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petitions and granted a writ of prohibition, as prayed for by respondent No.1. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Bank and the Arbitrator filed these writ appeals.

4. At the hearing, Sri P.S. Raja Sekhar, learned Counsel for the Bank, submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in issuing the writ of prohibition on the premise that under Section 19 of the Act the firms and companies are not eligible to become members and, therefore, they are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator under Section 61 of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that the fact that respondent No.1, in all these writ appeals, were admitted as members of the Bank and that they continued as such without being removed by following the provisions of the Act and obtained loans as members of the Bank is not in dispute. He contends that irrespective of whether respondent No.1 were eligible or not, as they continued to be the members of the Bank, the Bank is entitled to raise a dispute against them under Section 61 of the Act.

5. Initially appearance was entered by a learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No.1 in each of these writ appeals. As the Counsel reported no instructions, at the hearing, fresh notices were ordered on 10.6.2009. Personal notices were served by the Bank. The learned Counsel appearing for the Bank submitted a memo along with acknowledgments showing proof of service on respondent No.1 in these writ appeals. Despite service of notices, no one appeared for respondent No.1.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

7. Section 19 of the A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document