HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21394 of 2006 Date : 10.02.2011 Between : Ch. Suresh. …..Petitioner And The Trinity Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Vanasthalipuram, rep. by its Managing Director/Liquidator & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21394 of 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking for a Writ of Certiorary, calling for the records relating to A.R.C.Nos.404/2001/G and 309/2002/G, including the public caution notice, dated 04.10.2006, issued by the 1st respondent, and to quash the same. The 1st respondent is a Urban Bank Ltd, which is also a Society registered under the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. The petitioner herein, in the capacity of a proprietary concern by name M/s.Vamshi Traders and also on his personal name, obtained loan amounts from the 1st respondent-Bank under two loan accounts in an amount of Rs.12 lakhs on 11.10.1999 and Rs.5 lakhs on 15.05.2000. When the said amounts were not repaid, the 1st respondent-Bank has initiated arbitration proceedings before the 2nd respondent-arbitrator, who passed an award, dated 06.05.2003, in A.R.C.No.404/2001/G, for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,87,896/- with interest at the rate of 22% per annum till realisation in one account, and passed an award, dated 20.01.2003, in A.R.C.No.309/2002/G, for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,35,456/- with interest at the rate of 23% per annum from 01.10.2002, till realization. Questioning the said Awards, the petitioner herein, as a proprietor of M/s.Vamshi Traders, and in his individual capacity, has filed C.T.A.Nos.252 of 2003 and 168 of 2004 before the A.P.Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad. The Tribunal, by judgments, dated 15th June 2006, allowed the said appeals and remanded the matters to the arbitrator for fresh disposal. Pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, when fresh proceedings were initiated and inquiry was taken up by the 2nd respondent-arbitrator, having come to know that the petitioner was dealing with the properties, which were mortgaged to the Bank, liquidator of the 1st respondent-Bank has issued a public caution notice, dated 04.10.2006. At that stage, this writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorary, calling for records from the office of the 2nd respondent. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the loan amounts are already cleared and a clearance certificate is also issued by the Manager of the Society, and in that view of the matter, no arbitration proceedings can be continued. It is also the case of the petitioner that inspite of directions by the appellate Tribunal, original documents are not being marked by the Society to prove its claim. The further contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that when the loan amounts are already cleared, there is no authority or jurisdiction for the respondents to issue the public caution notice. A detailed counter affidavit is filed along with the enclosures showing the details of the loan amounts due from the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner, without clearing the dues, is relying on the ‘No due Certificate’ stated to have been issued by the Manager, who has no authority to issue such certificate. It is further stated that when the inquiry was taken up by the arbitrator pursuant to the remand order passed by the appellate Tribunal, this writ petition is filed with false allegations. It is submitted that as the properties are mortgaged to secure the loans obtained by the petitioner, and as there was a move by the petitioner to deal with such properties, to safeguard the interests of the Bank, the public caution notice is given. I have perused the orders passed by the appellate Tribunal and also the material produced along with the counter affidavit. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he has cleared the loan amounts, the same is disputed, and further, in earlier round of litigation, Awards were passed for recovery of loan amounts from the petitioner, on the applications filed by the Bank before the arbitrator. If the petitioner is having any certificate in proof of repayment, it is open for him to produce such document before the arbitrator, but on the ground that there is a loan clearance certificate issued by the Manager of the Bank, even before the arbitrator passes an award, the petitioner cannot question the proceedings before this Court. It is also to be noticed, as evident from the counter, that the 1st respondent-Bank is disputing the ‘No due Certificate’ stated to have been issued by the Manager and it is further stated that he has no authority to issue such certificate. Even if the original documents are not filed as directed by the Appellate Tribunal, it is for the arbitrator to consider the same while passing the Award. But even before the arbitrator passes the Award, on the ground that the original documents are not being filed by the applicant-respondent/bank, the petitioner cannot seek for quashing of the proceedings. With regard to the notice issued by the respondents, when the properties are mortgaged as a security for the loan amounts obtained by the petitioner, I do not find any illegality in issuing public notice, notifying the general public not to deal with such properties, when the loan amounts are still due according to them. In that view of the matter, it appears, this writ petition is filed only to stall the proceedings before the arbitrator by making false averments, and there is absolutely no reason to entertain this writ petition before the arbitrator passes an Award pursuant to orders of the appellate Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. However, as the arbitration applications are filed as long as in 2001 and 2002, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the said arbitration cases within a period of four months from today. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th February 2011 ajr