The provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which limit the interest that can be awarded on a judgment debt to 6% per annum, do not apply to awards made under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.

1. The Counter Petitioner in a Claim in A.R.C. No. 4731 of 1990 on the file of the Respondent is the Revision Petitioner herein. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the concurrent findings by the authorities below.

2. The petitioner executed a simple mortgage in the Co-operative Bank on 9.6.1982 for Rs. 18,500/-. He defaulted in payment in 1990. The Bank, on issuing notice, filed dispute for recovery of Rs. 19,372.95 with subsequent interest and costs. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 14,560/- was the principal and the balance towards interest, except an amount of Rs. 37/-, which was the cost of notice.

3. An award was passed against the petitioner as prayed for and he was made liable to pay interest at 10.5% from 1.7.1987 i.e. , the date of default till date of payment. The matter was taken on appeal before the lower appellate authority, and without success, the appeal was dismissed. The concurrent finding is now challenged in this revision.

4. The main contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the Written Statement, he has taken a contention that huge amount is due to him towards his salary and towards commission at the rate of 28% for appraising the jewels. It is said on the basis of appraisal made by the petitioner, the Bank has disbursed loan of Rs. 432 lakhs and if the commission is given no amount is payable to the Bank on the mortgage.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this contention has not been taken into consideration by the authorities below and the same has caused great injustice to the petitioner.

6. I do not think that the said contention could be accepted. The trial Court took into consideration this aspect and in issue No. 3, the Registrar has found that no evidence has been let in by the petitioner and not a scrap of paper is among the records to prove that any amount is due from the Society as claimed by him. In spite of the same, the Registrar permitted the petitioner to take other appropriate proceedings against the Society, if he is otherwise legally entitled to. When me matter was taken in appeal, the appellate Court also concurred with the said findings. It gave liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings.

7. Since the authorities have given liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings, I do not think that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I should reconsider the same over again. In this connection, it must be noted that originally the award was passed and the matter was taken into appeal by the revision petitioner. The entire award was set aside and remanded for reconsideration, giving an opportunity to me petitioner to adduce evidence. It was thereafter, the impugned award was passed and confirmed in appeal.

8. The learned Counsel further submitted that the interest awarded by the authorities is excessive. The contention is that the provisions of Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure will apply in cases of mis nature and therefore only 6% interest could be paid from the date of the claim. The learned counsel also relied on a decision of this Court in Gurunathan & another v. Villupuram Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., reported in 1979 TNLJ 448, rendered by Justice Ramaprasada Rao, C.J. of this Honourable Court. In that case, the Honourable Justice held that an award in the Co-operative Act is similar to the award in the Arbitration Act. In the concluding portion of the said Judgment, the Justice observed as under:

In my view, as it should be on par with the powers of courts under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the arbitrator also necessarily can grant interest for the post-award period only at the rate of six per cent annum notwithstanding the contractual rate of interest by which the parties are bound for the pendente lite period .”

9. For two reasons this contention could not be accepted. The decision was rendered under the Co-