The court affirmed the availability of multiple recovery modes for executing awards under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court taking up a contention that an award obtained by the 4^th respondent bank under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1969 Act’) should not be executed through the Civil Court and should be executed by resort to the other modes of recovery set out in Section 76 (b) & (c) of the 1969 Act. It appears to be the case of the petitioners that Civil Courts are flooded with the applications for execution of awards obtained by Co-operative Societies and lot of mismanagement and frauds are being conducted under the guise of filing applications for execution of awards before the Civil Court under (a) of the 1969 Act.

2. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent bank submit that it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the 4^th respondent-bank should not proceed for recovery in terms of the provisions contained in Section 76 (a) of the 1969 Act. It is submitted that the reliefs sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted in the light of the provisions of the statute and it is clear from a reading of of the 1969 Act that all the modes of recovery mentioned in sub-sections (a), (b), and (c) of are available to a Co-operative Society seeking enforcement of an award made under Section 70 .

3. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the property belonging to the petitioners, which was mortgaged for the purposes of securing repayment of the loan, is a very valuable property, and the petitioners may be permitted to approach the 4^th respondent bank with a proposal for conducting a private sale of the property for settlement of the entire liability.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent bank, I am clear in my mind that execution through the Civil Court, as contemplated by the provisions of Section 76 (a) of the 1969 Act, is a remedy open to the 4^th respondent bank for the purpose of executing an award obtained in terms of the provisions contained in Section 70 of the 1969 Act. It is not open to the petitioners to take the contention that such award should be executed only by the modes set out in sub-sections (b) and (c) of of the 1969 Act. The fact that the Civil Courts are flooded with applications for execution filed by Co-operative Societies is not a reason to hold that they should not exercise a remedy that is available to them in terms of the provisions contained in the statute. Moreover, the provisions of (a) of the 1969 Act have not been challenged by the petitioners. Therefore, I find no ground made out for granting the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

5. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners would like to effect a private sale of the property and settle the liability with the bank is concerned, I am of the view that such a proposal will have to be made before the bank. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of, holding that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition. However, the petitioners are permitted to approach the 4^th respondent bank seeking permission to conduct a private sale of the property and settling the liability with the bank. Any such application that may be submitted by the petitioners shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with the law and untrammelled by any observations contained in this judgment. If any private sale is permitted, it will be open to the competent authority to also fix any condition upon which such private sale will be permitted. I make it clear that I have not