SEEMASAHITHA WARIYAPOLA MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

SEEMASAHITHA WARIYAPOLA MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

Vs.

PATHIRAJA AND OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
GOONERATNE, J.
DR. FERNANDO, J.
CA/PHC/57/2016A AND CA/PHC/57/2016
HG KURUNEGALA HCW/1/2014
SEPTEMBER 25, 2020

Co-operative Societies Law, No. 5 of 1972,sections 58(2), 59(1), 59(4)-Recovery of money under arbitral award-Whether certificate issued to the Magistrate in terms of section 59(1)(c) can include interest component and costs-Meaning of "amount due''-lntention of the legislature-Purposive interpretation

The respondent was an employee of the 2nd appellant Wariyapola Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd. The 1st appellant Assistant Commissioner of Co-operative Development referred a dispute between the respondent and the 2nd appellant to an arbitrator in terms of section 58(2) of the Co-operative Societies Law, No. 5 of 1972, as amended. The arbitrator made an award to the effect that the respondent was liable to pay the 2nd appellant a sum of Rs. 160,131.62 together with interest thereon at a rate of 20% per annum until the sum was paid in full. The respondent failed to comply with the award and the 1st appellant issued a certificate to the Magistrate under section 59(1)(c) of the Law claiming a total sum of Rs. 450,553.00, which comprised the capital outstanding, interest due up to the date of the certificate and costs.

While proceedings were pending in the Magistrate's Court, the respondent filed a writ application before the Provincial High Court seeking inter alia a writ of certiorari to quash the certificate issued by the 1st appellant. After inquiry, the High Court held that the 1st appellant had acted in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the certificate, and issued a writ of certiorari quashing the certificate on the basis that section 59(1)(c) only permitted the recovery of the capital outstanding and not the interest component. The High Court relied on the fact that sections 59(1)(a) and 59(1)(b), which provide alternative recovery procedures, empower the Registrar (who is the Commissioner of Co-operative Development in terms of the

Law) to include both the amount due and the interest component in the certificate, whereas section 59(1)(c) empowers the Registrar to include only the amount due save the interest component. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held:

1. Section 59(1) of the Co-operative Societies Law provides three alternative remedies to the Registrar to recover a sum of money set out in an award made under section 58. These are, to issue a certificate to (i) a Government Agent, Assistant Government Agent, Fiscal or Deputy Fiscal under section 59(1)(a); (ii) a District Court under section 59(1)(b); or (iii) a Magistrate under section 59(1)(c).

2. Although section 59(1)(c) states that the certificate can be issued to the Magistrate containing the particulars of "the amount due", when section 59(1)(c) is read as a whole it is clear that the term "the amount due" means the capital outstanding, interest thereon, and costs.

3. In the construction of a statutory provision, it is important for the court to ascertain the intention of the legislature and the entire provision including the scheme of the Act must be considered as a whole and in context.

Cases referred to :

1. Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (Pvt) Ltd v. Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P. AIR 1968 SC 102 at 104
2. Herath v. Morgan Engineering (Pvt) Ltd (SC/APPEAL/214/2012, SC Minutes of 27.06.2013)
3. State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee F. Desai and others [2002] sec 318
4. Bharathiadasan University and another v. All India Council for Technical Education and others [2001] 8 sec 676
5. Manik Lal Majumdar v. Gouranga Chandra Dey [2005] 2 sec 400
6. Organo Chemicals Industries v. Union of India 1980 SCR (1) 61
7. Ambawa Thrift Credit Co-operative Society,Ambawa, Kuliyapitiya v. D.M. Sumana Dasanayake (CA/PHC/168/201

Click Here to Read the rest of this document