SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(P&H) 2

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bal Raj Tuli, J.
Rattan Singh
Versus
Rupar Sub-divisional Wholesale Co-operative Supply And Marketing Society Ltd., Rupar
Execution First Appeal No. 302 of 1967,
Decided On : JANUARY 10, 1969

An award made under Section 56 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, is executable under Section 63 of the Act, and a certificate from the Registrar is necessary to make the award a decree of a civil court.

Headnote:

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT - EXECUTION OF AWARD - CERTIFICATE FROM REGISTRAR - NECESSITY - SECTION 63 - AWARD MADE UNDER SECTION 56 - EXECUTABLE UNDER SECTION 63 - ORDER UNDER SECTION 69 - NOT EXECUTABLE UNDER SECTION 63.

Fact of the Case:

The Rupar Sub-Division Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. (the Society) and Rattan Singh (appellant) had a dispute referred to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded Rs. 20,019.73 to the Society. Rattan Singh filed a revision to the State Government under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (the Act), which reduced the amount to Rs. 16,000/-. The Society filed a review application, which was allowed, and interest was imposed on the unpaid instalments. Rattan Singh challenged the review order in the High Court, which quashed it. The Society filed an execution application in the Senior Subordinate Judge's Court, Rupar, to execute the award and the review order. Rattan Singh objected, arguing that the review order was quashed and the original award was modified by the order under Section 69 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the execution application could not be proceeded with as it purported to execute the award as modified by the quashed review order. The original award, as modified by the order under Section 69 of the Act, could be executed. However, the Society did not obtain the certificate from the Registrar as required under Section 63 of the Act, which was necessary to make the award a decree of a civil court. Therefore, the execution proceedings were without jurisdiction.

Issues: 1. Whether the execution application could be proceeded with after the quashing of the review order? 2. Whether the certificate from the Registrar was necessary to execute the award under Section 63 of the Act? 3. Whether the order under Section 69 of the Act could be executed under Section 63 of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The execution application could not be proceeded with as it purported to execute the award as modified by the quashed review order. The original award, as modified by the order under Section 69 of the Act, could be executed. 2. The certificate from the Registrar was necessary to execute the award under Section 63 of the Act, as it was required to make the award a decree of a civil court. 3. The order under Section 69 of the Act could not be executed under Section 63 of the Act, as it did not relate to the orders passed under Section 69 of the Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the execution application was rejected as not maintainable. There was no order in regard to costs as the point relating to the non-obtaining of the certificate of the Registrar had not been agitated before the executing Court.

Judgment

Bal Raj Tuli, J.

1. There was a dispute between the Rupar Sub-Division Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd., hereinafter called `the Society, and Rattan Singh appellant, which was referred to Shri Kirpal Singh, Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, as arbitrator on 5th April, 1962. The arbitrator made his award on 10th of July, 1962 whereby he ordered Rattan Singh appellant to pay Rs. 20,019.73 to the Society. Against that award Rattan Singh filed a revision to the State Government under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as `the Act), which was heard by Shri H.S. Achreja, Secretary Co-operation Department, on 27th of July,1963, and the amount was reduced to Rs. 16,000/-. The operative part of his order of 27th July, 1963, is as under :-

"Under the above circumstances and purely as a matter of goodwill and compassion to the unfortunate petitioner, I decide that not more than Rs. 16,000/- should be recovered from him without interest in instalments of Rs. 100/- per month commencing from August, 1963. If, however, he fails to pay three consecutive instalments it will be open to the Society to enforce the Arbitrators award with its full civil implications."

The Society then filed a review application which was decided by Shri H.S. Achreja on 28th of December, 1963. By his order interest was imposed at the rate of 7 per cent per annum on the unpaid instalments, which would become overdue till the day the arrears are cleared, and curtailed the number of defaults to ten. Against that order the appellant filed Civil Writ No. 127 of 1965 in this Court challenging the order of Shri H.S. Achreja, dated 28th of December, 1963, whereby he had reviewed his earlier order of 27th of July, 1963 on merits. The said writ petition was allowed by Tek Chand, J., on 22nd of September, 1967 and the order dated 28th of December, 1963 of Shri H.S. Achreja was quashed.

2 The Society filed an execution application in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Rupar, on 22nd of May, 1967 in which the execution was sought of the award dated 10th of July, 1962 and the order passed by Shri H.S. Achreja on 28th of December, 1963. The appellant raised an objection before the executing Court that since the order dated 29th of December, 1963 had been quashed by this Court, the execution proceedings could not continue in respect thereof. The execution of the original award dated 10th of July, 1962, could not be carried on as it had been modified by the order of Shri H.S. Achreja, dated 27th of July, 1963, which was the operative order. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge overruled this objection by his order dated 6th of November, 1967. Aggrieved against that order the appellant has filed the present appeal in this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the execution application purported to execute the award as modified by the order, dated 28th of December, 1963, and it could not be executed in view of the order of this Court quashing the order dated 28th of December, 1963. The only award that could be executed was the original award as modified by the order of Shri H.S. Achreja, dated 27th of July, 1963. After the quashing of the order dated 29th of December, 1963, by this Court on 22nd of September, 1967, the decree-holder placed on the record a copy of the order dated 27th of July, 1963. The mere production of a copy of the order, dated 27th of July, 1963, did not amount to seeking execution of that order, and, therefore, the execution application, as was filed originally, could not be proceeded with.

4. The next point urged is that under Section 63 of the Act, the decision or award made under Sections 54, 56, 62 and 68 of the Act can be executed in a civil Court only on a certificate signed by the Registrar, or any person authorised by him in this behalf, as it is that certificate which makes the decision or the award a decree of a civil Court which



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top