IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1358 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.1.2008 Lt. Col. P.C. Chandel (Retd) Petitioner Versus The Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd. And others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Shri S.S.Pathania, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to lay challenge to the award dated 31.12.2001, passed against the petitioner and the private respondents by respondent No.3. It is apparent from the records that award (Annexure P/4), was passed at the instance of respondent No.1 on account of failure of respondent No.2 to repay the loan amount. It is clear from the records that respondent No.1 raised a dispute, alleging therein that the respondent No.2 has not returned the loan amount and recovery of more than Rs.61 lac is due from it. Matter was referred to the Arbitrator under the provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). In those proceedings, the petitioner was arrayed as one of the respondents. It is an admitted fact that when loan was raised, the petitioner stood as a guarantor Civil Writ Petition No.1358 of 2008 and he also mortgaged his house for realisation of the loan amount. Upon notice, Shri D.N.Tanwar, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and argued the matter. He made a prayer that the matter be settled under the One Time Settlement Policy, devised by the respondent No.1, however above said argument did not find favour with the Arbitrator and it was rejected. Ultimately an award was passed on 31.12.2001, holding that respondent No.2 is liable to return an amount more than Rs.70 lac with interest. Award was also passed against the guarantors, including the petitioner. When the principal borrower failed to repay the amount, execution proceedings were initiated in which house of the petitioner was attached. At that stage, the petitioner filed one application before the Court below by stating that as before passing the award (Annexure P/4), no notice was given to him, the same is not binding against the petitioner. That application was rejected. Then the petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed vide order (Annexure P/6) dated 11.9.2007. The appellate authority observed thus:- “I have considered all these arguments and find that there is no merit in them for the following reasons:- i) It has not been explained by the appellant as to why he has asked for inspection of record on 18.8.2006 when he claims no knowledge of the case. ii) The change of stance vis-a-vis Sh.D.N.Tanwar, Advocate who has been accused of misrepresentation and false statement on one hand and whose justification by way of affidavit is presented by counsel for the appellant with the other hand is not explained. He was given ample 2 Civil Writ Petition No.1358 of 2008 opportunity to establish his bonafide of his assertion that the advocate has wrongly represented him without authorization but has failed to do so. iii) The affidavit furnished by Mr.Tanwar is also flimsy in my opinion. The “vakalatnama” duly signed by him records very clearly that he represents “all respondent”. This cannot be oversight. Claiming at this stage that only respondent No.2 has signed the vakalatnama and the mistake was on the part of the staff of Additional Registrar (Admn.), Cooperative Societies, Punjab amounts to misleading this court now. As an established advocate, he should have understood his own role in signing the power of attorney, which records on the top of it that he represents all the respondents in this case. His presence on behalf of all the respondents is duly recorded and established in the arbitration order of Additional Registrar (Admn.), Cooperative Societies, Punjab also. Sh.D.N.Tanwar must have received and seen the copy of the order as counsel for respondents. However, he never pointed out this issue to the Arbitrator in all these years. If his contention now is correct, it was obligatory on his part to have brought this fact out so that the additional Registrar (Admn), Cooperative Societies, Punjab could have ensured service of notice to all the respondents. Sh.D.N.Tanwar also claims that he represented only respondents no 1 & 2 i.e. the managing Director of the loanee company and 3 Civil Writ Petition No.1358 of 2008 the company itself. Only respondent No.2’s signatures are on the vakalatnama as stated by Tanwar in his affidavit. By his logic, as per law, he could not even represent Respondent No.1 i.e. the loanee company since there is no resolution of the company on record authorizing the Managing Director or Sh.D.N.Tanwar to represent the company. The vakalatnama on record must be taken on the face value as being on behalf of “all respondents” since Sh.Tanwar failed to inform the Arbitrator to the contrary. iv) It must also be noted that the arbitration issue was decided against all the respondents who were loanees or guarantors of the loan given by the Bank and have still not paid back the amount due, which led to the arbitration case. The bank is within its rights to claim the outstanding amount, which they have failed to recover inspite of using the normal procedures available to the bank. As a guarantor, Lt. Col (Retd) P.C. Chandel is also liable to repayment of loan. The bank is following due process of law to recover the amount owned to it. Considering the above, I find no merit in the assertion of Lt. Col (Retd) P.C. Chandel wherein he has stated that he has no knowledge about the case and no opportunity has been provided to him to present his point of view.” It is an admitted fact that in this writ petition no challenge has been laid to the order (Annexure P/6), as such, the same has become final. 4 Civil Writ Petition No.1358 of 2008 Furthermore, against order (Annexure P/6), revision is competent under the provisions of the Act. Be that as it may, at the time of hearing of this writ petition, we asked the petitioner as to how he can save his property from being sold, as the same was mortgaged for realisation of the amount raised by respondent No.2. No cogent answer has been given to us. We even gave offer to the petitioner to deposit 75% of the amount to save his house, that offer was not accepted. It is a case where public money was not returned to respondent no.1. The said loan amount was disbursed when the petitioner stood guarantor and also mortgaged his house. Unless some part of that amount is paid, we are not inclined to interfere at the instance of the petitioner. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge January 30, 2008 (Jaswant Singh) gk Judge 5