The court held that where new, material evidence—specifically an official report stating that the petitioners were never members of the society and never availed the alleged loans—is produced after tribunal proceedings, the matter must be remanded for reconsideration to ensure justice, especially when previous orders lacked detailed reasoning.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.79676/2013 have challenged the order dated 13.11.1998 passed in Appeal No.405/1997 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru vide Annexure–A, and the award dated 08.04.1997 passed in Panchayath Dispute No.5753/96-97 by the Arbitrator vide Annexure-B.

2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.79677/2013 have challenged the order dated 13.11.1998 passed in Appeal No.407 of 1997 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A, and the award dated 08.04.1997 in Panchayath Dispute No.5755/96-97 by the Arbitrator vide Annexure-B.

3. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.79678/2013 have challenged the order dated 13.11.1998 passed in Appeal No.578 of 1997 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A, and award dated 22.07.1997 in Panchayath Dispute No.AR-10-D-DDS-5747/96-97 by the Arbitrator vide Annexure-B.

4. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.79679/2013 have challenged the order dated 13.11.1998 passed in Appeal No.579 of 1997 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A, and award dated 22.07.1997 in Panchayath Dispute No.AR-10-D-DDS-5748/96-97 by the Arbitrator vide Annexure-B.

5. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.79680/2013 have challenged the order dated 13.11.1998 passed in Appeal No.580 of 1997 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A, and award dated 22.07.1997 in Panchayath Dispute No.AR-10-D-DDS-5749/96-97 by the Arbitrator vide Annexure-B.

6. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.80325/2013 have challenged the order dated 12.11.1998 passed in Appeal No.406 of 1997 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A and award dated 08.04.1997 in Panchayath Dispute No.AR-10-D-DDS-5754/96-97 by the Arbitrator vide Annexure-B.

7. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:

8. Respondent No.2 raised a dispute before respondent No.1, alleging that petitioner have availed loan from respondent No.3-Bank which was referred to the Arbitrator for disposal of the dispute by respondent No.1. The Arbitrator, after enquiry, passed awards against the petitioners vide Annexure-B. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, vide judgments dated 12.11.1998 and 13.11.1998 vide Annexure-A, dismissed the appeals. Hence, these writ petitions.

9. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a statement of objections raising several grounds and prayed for dismissal of writ petition.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Advocate.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not residents within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3–Society, and are not its primary members. It is submitted that they have not availed any loan from the said Society. He submits that, the officials of respondent No.3 created documents and obtained loans in the name of the petitioners. He further submits that during the pendency of the appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society who submitted a report to respondent No.2 stating that the petitioners had not obtained any loan and that the loans in their names were secured by third parties by way of impersonation and fabrication of documents. He submits that the said report could not be produced before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. He furt