IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL No.1423 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/08/2008 in WP No. 4775 of 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1.Sri Raza Ali S/o. Mahmood Ali, R/o. House No. 17-4-326, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. 2.Sri Inayath Ali, S/o. Raza Ali, R/o. House No. 17-4-326, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. 3.Sri Vilayat Ali, S/o. Raza Ali R/o. House No. 17-4-326, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1.The Deputy Registrar/ Arbitrator, The Chairman, Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 2.The Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Recovery Manager (SPA), Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 3.The Sale Officer, Office of the Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR. SYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1423 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The appellants herein are the writ petitioners. They ﬁled WP No.4775 of 2005 questioning the notice of sale of immovable property issued by the Sale Oﬃcer of the Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., (3rd respondent herein) in E P.No.12 of 2002 dated 05.02.2005, which was issued pending disposal of CTA No.29 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal (District Judge), Hyderabad. 2. CTA No.29 of 2002 was ﬁled questioning the arbitration award passed by the Arbitrator in ARC No.1395/98-J1 dated 24.04.1999, directing the ﬁrst appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.86,883/- together with interest, to the Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd, in default, it is open for the Bank to recover the entire dues from out of movable or immovable properties of the appellants 2 and 3. 3. As per the legal requirement, half of the amount that is liable to be deposited is deposited by the appellants pending the C.T.A. and in the meanwhile, the sale notice dated 05.02.2005 was issued. Thereafter, the Cooperative Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants, admittedly, borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- by mortgaging the immovable property, agreeing to repay the same in 35 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.3500/- and the appellants 2 and 3 herein, who are the surety-holders, have executed necessary documents. But as the instalment amounts have not been paid and therefore, as per the terms of the agreement, entire amount was demanded. Accordingly, it was held that the demand of loan amount is not pre-mature. It was the contention that the Arbitrator has not given proper opportunity to the appellants, but their contention was also negatived, holding that the Arbitrator has given proper opportunity to the appellants. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the appellants ﬁled W.P.No.4775 of 2005 contending that the reference was made under Section 74(2) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and therefore, entertaining the dispute and passing the award under Section 61 read with Section 62(2) of the Act, is erroneous. The said contentions have been rejected by the learned Single Judge, holding that the perusal of the arbitration award goes to show that the reference was made under Section 61 read with 62(2) of the Act and therefore, the arbitration award was also passed resolving the dispute and hence it cannot be said that the reference was made under Section 74(2) of the Act but not under Section 61 read with Section 62(2) of the Act. The dispute was only with regard to the liability of the appellants to pay the amount. The said dispute, which was referred, was rightly resolved under Section 61 read with Section 62(2) of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that pending disposal of the appeal, sale notice was issued which is illegal and arbitrary. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that since the appeal itself has been dismissed, it is open for the Bank to recover the amount in pursuance of the sale notice already issued. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, an amount of Rs.55,917/- has been deposited and the petitioners are taking steps for one time settlement regarding the balance amount payable by the appellants, which is about more than a lakh. 6. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to entitlement for one time settlement or regarding the amount due but, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to enable the appellants to avail the remedy, if he is entitled as per law. Whether one time settlement is agreed by the respondents or not, the appellants shall pay the entire balance amount, within eight (8) weeks from today. 7. In the result, the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 04.11.2008 bss