The principle that a party cannot benefit from repeated frivolous litigation to avoid compliance with a final award, and that failure to adhere to court conditions can bar subsequent appeals.

JUDGMENT

N.V. Anjaria, C.J. -

Frivolously prolonged spate of litigation leaving a successful party waiting for reaping fruits of litigation, in ultimate analysis, erodes the faith in the justice delivery system. The facts of this case make one such instance.

2. The appellant-original respondent No.1 has preferred this appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, seeking to call in question judgment and order dated 18th January 2024 of learned Single Judge. Thereby, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the original petitioner-the MICO Associates Housing Cooperative Society Ltd.-respondent No.2 herein, by setting aside order dated 24th August 2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Cooperative Appeal No.89 of 2023.

2.1 Consequently, Interim Application No.4 and an Interim Application No.7 filed in the said appeal proceedings came to be allowed. Appeal No.89 of 2023 preferred by respondent No.1-Sri. G.Krishna Murthy, before the Tribunal came to be dismissed as not maintainable. I.A. No.4 was for vacating the interim order and I.A. No.7 was seeking dismissal of the appeal on the ground of maintainability.

3. The facts in the background have chequered history, which may be delineated in some detail in order to comprehend the ultimate controversy involved in this appeal. Respondent No.2 herein-MICO Associates Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') a cooperative society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, comprised of workers of the MICO Factory, was formed with an object of buying land and forming a layout to distribute the sites for providing roof to the factory workers, who were more than 1200 in numbers. The society entered into a Land Assembling- cum-Development Agreement dated 15th March 2013 with the appellant-original respondent No.1, who happened to be the Proprietor of one Vinayaka Builders and Developers. The appellant promised to procure lands from different land owners. In the process, respondent-appellant herein collected more than Rs.31.75 crores.

3.1 Though the appellant had promised to get lands in favour of the society, he failed to carry out the obligations and did not adhere to contractual terms. It is the case that appellant was supposed to pay advance amount to the land owners, out of the total collected sum of Rs.12,19,13,000/- only was paid and the balance was pocketed. Also, two acres of land was procured and converted in favour of the society at a sale consideration of Rs.1.98 crores. Resultantly, appellant became indebted to refund to the society a sum of Rs.17,57,87,000/- with interest.

3.1.1 Raising a dispute, the society initiated the proceedings on 24th October 2016 under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, before respondent No.2-the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Bengaluru. The Registrar directed attachment of the immovable properties of the appellant under Section 103(2) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cooperative Societies Act'). An award came to be passed under Section 71 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The appellant was directed to pay Rs.17,57,87,000/- together with the damages to the tune of Rs.3 crores.

3.2 The aforesaid award came to be challenged by the appellant before this Court in Writ Petition No.26288-328 of 2017. Respondent No.2-original petitioner raised contention about maintainability in view of availability of appeal before the Tribunal under Section 105 of the Cooperative Societies Act. This Court partially allowed the petition. After setting aside the award, the Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs.2 crores within two months and failing which, the society was to be entitled to proceed with the execution to implement the award. It is the fact not in dispute that said Rs.2 crores required to be deposited pursuant to the above order, has not been so far deposited. The aforesaid petition was finally disposed o