Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑1837 of 1979, heard on 5th November, 1984.

‑‑‑S.64‑A‑‑Loan‑‑Repayment of‑‑Petitioner admittedly paid Rs.40, 750 to Society to be remitted against loan obtained from other Co‑operative Bank‑‑Government by its order in revision filed by Co‑operative Bank directed petitioner to pay lump sum of Rs.60,000 in satisfaction of Co‑operative Bank's claim‑‑Fact that petitioner had paid amount of Rs.40,750 was not even disputed‑‑High Court remanded case to Government with direction to go into question, whether amount received by Co‑operative Bank included amount paid by petitioner in circumstances.

K.B. Bhutto for Petitioner.

Sheralidina, Abas Ali and Ismail Ahmad for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 5th November, 1984.

.‑‑This petition is directed against an order, dated 20‑9‑1979 passed by the Secretary, Labour and Co‑operation, Government of Sind in Revision filed under section 64‑A of the Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner on or about 18‑4‑1969 obtained a loan of Rs.31,000 against the mortgage of the Property No.1/B‑9/5, Nazimabad, Karachi, from respondent No.2 through one Urban and Agricultural Co‑operative Bank Ltd. , Karachi, of which respondent Nor3 is successor‑ in‑interest. The petitioner executed a mortgage deed in favour of respondent No.2 for the above loan. It seems that a lump sum loan of Rs.12,78,000 was obtained by respondent No.3 from respondent No.2 and the same was apportioned between its members against the execution of mortgage deeds by the members in favour of respondent No.2 for the respective amount of loans granted to them. It is an admitted position that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.40,750 to respondent No.3 for remitting the same to respondent Nn.2. It appears that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.12,827.06 against the redemption of the mortgaged property which is reflected in his letter, dated 28‑1‑1975 addressed by him to respondent No.3. The above letter was followed by notices, dated 27‑10‑1975 and 26‑2‑1976 (Annexures 'B' and 'C' to the petition). After that the petitioner invoked the Arbitration under the Act and the same was proceeded with under caption Arbitration Case No.86 of 1977 and the award was given by the nominees on 3‑12‑1977 holding that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs.61,650 including interest upto 30‑9‑1977 though at the same time it was not disputed that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.40,750. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order filed an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Karachi Region, Karachi, who allowed the same to the extent of ordering that the petitioner was liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.17,136 including interest upto 30‑6‑1977. Respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Registrar filed the aforesaid Revision before the Secretary, Labour and Co‑operative Department, Government of Sind, who by his impugned order directed the petitioner to pay the lump sum of Rs.60,000 in satisfaction of respondent No.2's claim, through the factum that the petitioner had paid the aforesaid sum of Rs.40,750 was not even disputed before him. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the above petition.

3. We 'have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we had noticed that in the Statement of Accounts filed by respondent No.2 there are credit entries to the extent of Rs.7,03,024.14. Neither the nominees nor the Secretary, Labour and Co‑operation Department in the Award and the Order, respectively have adverted to this aspect. If actually the amount received by respondent No.2 Society includes the payment made by the petitioner to respondent No.3 for remitting the same to respondent No.2 his liability will be only for the balance amount and not for the entire amount. It may be observed that the plea taken by respondent No. 3 was that the amount paid by the petitioner to respondent No.3 was remitted to respondent No.2 which is reflected in respondent No.3's letter, dated 31‑1‑1977.

4. We are, therefore, of the view that it will be just and proper to remand the case to the Secretary, Labour and Co‑operation Department of Sind with the direction to go into the question,' whether the amount received by respondent No.2 reflected in the aforesaid Statement of Accounts included the amount paid by the petitioner. We order accordingly. The above petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

H. B. T. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.