IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19147 of 2007 Date of Decision: 17.1.2008 The Ideal Handloom Production Cooperative Industrial Society Ltd. And others Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner Cooperation, Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Shri M.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner No.1 is a Cooperative Society and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are its members. In the year 1996, petitioner No.1 raised loan to the extent of Rs.1,71,480/-, it was interest free loan. As per terms and conditions of the loan agreement, repayment was to be made in installments and admittedly, first installment was to be paid in the year 1997. After getting above said loan, the petitioners failed to comply with the terms and conditions of loan agreement & did not pay even a single penny to respondent No.4, who, after waiting for about 8 years, raised a dispute, which was referred to an Arbitrator under Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. When despite opportunity given, the petitioners failed to put in appearance before the Arbitrator, they were proceeded ex-party and vide order dated 9.6.2005, the Arbitrator passed an award, ordering repayment of amount, referred to above, along with interest Civil Writ Petition No.19147 of 2007 @ 15% per annum from due date till realisation of the total amount. The petitioners remain unsuccessful in appeal and revision. Hence, this writ petition. Before us, it is primary contention of counsel for the petitioners that out of the amount of loan raised, respondent No.4 was to adjust Rs.95,000/- towards subsidy. By ignoring that benefit, dispute was raised with regard to the entire amount of loan i.e. Rs.1,71,480/-. By referring to above said facts, counsel argued that the award was passed without any justification and prayed that it be set aside. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, we are not satisfied with the arguments raised. It is not in dispute that the amount of Rs.1,71,480/- was given to the petitioners by way of interest free loan by respondent No.4. He was to repay the same in installments and first installment was to be deposited in the year 1997. Not even a single penny was repaid. Forced under these circumstances, dispute was raised and the Arbitrator rightly ordered that the petitioners are duty bound to repay the loan amount, which was raised by them. Relevant portion of the award reads thus:- “I have gone through the record placed on file and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner in the petition. It is clear that the respondent Society had taken interest free loan of Rs.1,71,418/- under the Self Employment Generation Scheme and necessary legal documents had also been executed in favour of Weavco by the respondent Society. The President of the Society has certified on the Bill No.208 dated 15.2.1997 issued by M/s Aar Kay Enterprises, Amritsar that he has received the machinery etc. Thus, it is established 2 Civil Writ Petition No.19147 of 2007 that the Respondent Society failed to repay the amount of loan of Rs.1,71,418/- to the petitioner Society as per terms and conditions laid down in the sanction letter.” Contention of counsel for the petitioners, that respondent No.4 was to adjust Rs.95,000/- towards subsidy, was negatived by the appellate Court by observing thus:- “It is now left to determine whether the amount outstanding is a grant of a loan. Without going into the details of the scheme etc, which is not required at this stage, it is quite sufficient to note that the appellant No.1 have passed a resolution under the Presidentship of Mr.Kashmiri Lal, respondent No.2 accepting the amount advanced by Weavco as a loan with detailed procedure for repayment laid down in the sanction document. An affidavit in this context has also been furnished and is on record. The resolution of the society is also on record. Proper documents accepting loan from Weavco and mortgaging the machinery, for which payments were made directly by Weavco to the third party on the confirmation of the appellants having received the machinery is also properly documented and is on record. Having accepted the money executed the documents declaring it to be a loan accepted and also mortgaging the machinery in due compliance of the procedure of obtaining a loan-eight years ago, the appellants today cannot raise this issue of whether the amount was to be considered as a loan or a grant. The cannot unilaterally term it a grant. As far as the scope of this appeal is concerned, I 3 Civil Writ Petition No.19147 of 2007 find that the arbitration award is proper and hence, the appeal is dismissed.” The petitioners have failed to show us any document, to say that amount was not advanced as loan. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner Society passed a resolution accepting the amount as loan, for its realisation, the machinery was mortgaged and an affidavit was also filed in that regard. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge January 17, 2008 (Jaswant Singh) gk Judge 4