CWP No.8769 of 1991 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8769 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.08.2011 Sampuran Singh s/o Shri Bakshi Singh, resident of village Nandgarh, Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda. ... Petitioner Versus The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: None for the petitioner. None for respondents No.1, 4 to 6, 8 & 9. Mr. G.S. Virk, Advocate, for respondents No.2, 3 & 7. Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The challenge in the writ petition is to the award passed by the Arbitrator under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The award was for realization of money against four persons, who were the Committee Members, Secretary and the Treasurers of the Society for sums alleged to have been received by them from the Bank but not distributed the same and false entries had been made as the loans have been issued. After the award CWP No.8769 of 1991 (O&M) [2] was passed in the revision filed to the Commissioner, the only point urged was that the Arbitrator did not have a right to undertake the adjudication without any reference being made to him. 2. The objection was rejected by the Commissioner holding that the Members of the Committee, Secretary and the Treasurers were impleaded on 10.06.1975 on the application moved on 14.05.1975 by the Liquidator of the Society. It appears that the Society had started making recoveries before the Arbitrator on a reference sought by the Liquidator. The counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 points out that the statutory arbitrator as contemplated by the Cooperative Society Act enables a Liquidator to make a reference under Section 55 of the said Act. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The case is of the year 1991 and I have decided, therefore, to render a judgment on merits on the basis of arguments made by the counsel for respondent No.5. The impugned orders are confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. ( K. KANNAN ) AUGUST 19, 2011 JUDGE Rajan