CWP No.1088 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1088 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2011 **** SS Kainth . . . . Petitioner VS. Financial Commission Coop. Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms Jagdeep Bains, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner, who is former Managing Director of the Ajnala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., seeks quashing of the order dated 19.10.2009 (Annexure P8) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’). (2). The above-stated order has been passed by the revisional authority in the arbitration proceedings instituted by respondent No.4-Sugarfed against the petitioner under CWP No.1088 of 2010.doc - 2 – Section 55 (c) of the Act. The admitted facts are that the recovery claim in relation to which the arbitration proceedings have been initiated pertains to the order passed in the year 1992-93 and it has been first time raised in the year 1995. (3). The question as to whether the above stated claim was barred by limitation or not stands answered by this Court in favour of the petitioner in Krishan Kumar Sharma vs. Rajpur Sallapur Cooperative Agricultural Services Society Ltd. 2001(2)PLJ 210 in which reliance was placed upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. TP Kunhaliumma, AIR 1977 SC Page 282. (4). Suffice it to mention that the Arbitrator had initially dismissed the claim of respondent No.4 on the ground of limitation against which an appeal was preferred by respondent No.4 after a delay of 360 days. The said appeal was dismissed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies being time barred. It was thereafter that respondent No.4-Sugarfed approached the revisional authority resulting into the impugned order dated 19.10.2009 (Annexure P8). (5). Following the decision rendered in Krishan Kumar Sharma’s case (supra), I am of the considered view that CWP No.1088 of 2010.doc - 3 – the claim raised by respondent-Sugarfed in the year 1995 pertaining to an amount recoverable in 1992-93 was hopelessly time barred and the view taken to this effect by the Arbitrator or the Appellate Authority warranted no interference by the Revisional Authority. (6). For the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.10.2009 (Annexure P8) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperative is hereby set aside. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 10.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge