IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 3568 of 2002 Between: Prakash Jeevan S/o Makkalal R/o H.No. 23-5-784, Nagulchinta, Shalibanda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Aryan Coop. Urbank Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies, City Circle, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari declaring the award dated 14-10-1997 in ARC No. 785/97 J1 of the 2nd Respondent herein as confirmed by the judgment dated 7-12-2001 of the Hon'ble A.P.Coop. Tribunal at Hyderabad in CTA No. 20/1999 as without jurisdiction, without application of mind, illegal, arbitrary, perverse, unjust barred by limitation besides being violative of the ration laid down in various judicial pronouncements on the subject. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.BHADRAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.MANNE VENUGOPAL The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 3568 of 2002 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the award dated 14-10-1997 passed by the second respondent in Arbitration Case No.785/97 J1 under Section 62(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioner for a sum of Rs.19,661.50p. together with interest at the rate of 19% per annum as confirmed on appeal by the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad by judgment dated 07-12-2001 in CTA.No.20 of 1999 is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The order of the second respondent dated 14-10-1997 shows that the petitioner, who is the principal borrower, admitted his liability and did not contest the proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned award was passed on 14-10-1997. However, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad under Section 76(1) of the Act, contending that the award was barred by limitation and that the interest awarded at the rate of 14% per annum was contrary to law. On verification of the original record, the Tribunal found that the Arbitration case was presented on 04-03-1997, well within the limitation of three years from 13-04-1994 on which date the loan was sanctioned. The contention with regard to the rate of interest was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner never raised any dispute before the Arbitrator. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the said order, which does not suffer from any error of fact or law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 16-12-2008 KLP