Civil Writ Petition No. 8857 of 2000. Case: Pritam Singh Vs State of Punjab and others. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | Civil Writ Petition No. 8857 of 2000 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Vikas Behl, Adv. And For Respondents: Mr. Yatinder Sharma DAG, Punjab and Mr. J. S. Verka, Adv. |
| Judges | Ranjit Singh, J. |
| Issue | Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Sections 55, 69, 84 |
| Citation | 2012 (168) PLR 674 |
| Judgement Date | September 10, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Ranjit Singh, J.
-
The petitioner has retired on 31.12.1993 from the services of Co-operative Societies, Patti as Inspector. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies had revived Bhure Nau Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. On 09.04.1991 (hereinafter 'B.N. Society' for short). The petitioner, who was working as Inspector in another Society was appointed as Administrator of Bhure Nau Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. The agricultural credit was not available to the farmers. The petitioner authorized the Secretary of the Society to enroll new members. The Secretary, accordingly, enrolled 89 new members. The Secretary then was Sh. Kulwant Singh whereas one Sh. Magar Singh, was the Inspector Incharge of the Society. As already noticed, the petitioner though was working as Inspector and the Incharge of another Society but was appointed as Administrator of B.N. Society where Inspector Magar Singh was working as Inspector. The petitioner remained as Administrator from 09.04.1991 to 08.10.1991 and new Managing Committee was elected on 26.11.1991.
-
Loans were advanced by the Society through the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Amarkot. The part of the loan was advanced in the shape of fertilizers against 'B' component cheques and part of loan was disbursed by the branch of the bank as cash. The petitioner states that cash or fertilizers belonging to the Society never came under the custody of the Society. However, recoveries were not received from number of the new members.
-
The respondent-Society then prepared arbitration references and appointed Magar Singh as Arbitrator. He was also the Inspector Incharge of B.N. Society, It is alleged that Magar Singh Arbitrator managed to get the petitioner impleaded as party to the dispute and then on the very first date of hearing, without affording any opportunity of hearing either to the petitioner or give him time to put up defences, allowed the Arbitration reference. The Arbitrator did not grant any adjournment to any of the parties.
-
The Arbitrator found that the loan had been correctly obtained by the loanee members but the same was not being returned. The finding also is that the Administrator did not get security from the Secretary and also did not verify that the members were living in area of operation of the society. In this manner, Arbitrator gave 24 awards against the petitioner and the others. Out of 24 awards, 16 were set aside by the higher...
To continue reading
Request your trial