- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10653-DB WA No. 238 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 238 OF 2021 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. R/P BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RATHNAGIRI ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHANTESH S. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H.S. MANJUNATH S/O SUBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. H.S. VISHWANATH S/O SUBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. K.B. SAROJA W/O H.S. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4. K.B. GIRIJA W/O H.S. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10653-DB WA No. 238 of 2021 RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF J.M. ROAD MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101 5. PUTTASWAMYGOWDA S/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS KANNENAHALLI GONIBIDU HOBLI MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101 6. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MYSURU REGION PALACE OFFICE BUILDING MYSURU-510 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.N. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4: V.C.O. DATED 16.06.2023 - NOTICE TO R5 IS D/W; SRI. C.H. DEVARAJ, HCGP FOR R6) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.3508/2015 DATED 03.03.2020 AND FURTHER PLEASE TO GRANT RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION No.3508/2015 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10653-DB WA No. 238 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a Co-operative Bank. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the claim raised by the Bank for an amount of Rs.5,25,006/- which has been paid by the Bank as municipal taxes and dues in respect of the property of respondents No.1 to 4 has been declined. 3. It is submitted that the appellant, in the year 2011, had initiated a proceeding under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959') against the respondents, claiming the amount paid towards commercial tax and municipal tax for an amount of Rs.5,25,006/-. The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies by its order dated 24.03.2011 had allowed the petition directing respondents No.1 to 4 to pay the amount with - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10653-DB WA No. 238 of 2021 16% interest thereon. Respondents No.1 to 4 challenged the said order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and by the order impugned in the writ petition which is dated 26.09.2014, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies on the ground that it is a second dispute on the same cause of action, which is not maintainable. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the cause of action in respect of payment of Rs.5,25,006/- as municipal and other taxes was a separate and distinct cause of action and that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was therefore, completely unjustified. 4. It is submitted that the earlier dispute between respondents No.1 to 4 and the Bank was with regard to a housing loan availed by the respondents from the appellant- Bank by pledging their property. It is submitted that loan of Rs.35,00,000/- was sanctioned but after the first amount of Rs.17,00,000/- was released, it was found that the respondents had committed fraud and sold a portion of the pledged property to third persons. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10653-DB WA No. 238 of 2021 5. It is submitted that recovery of the loan amount was the cause of action in respect of the first set of litigations between the parties, which resulted in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 12.11.2007 in WA No.580/2007. It is submitted that it was in the months of April to June 2007 that the payments had been made by the Society towards municipal taxes and other charges and that the said payments amounts to a fresh cause of action. 6. The learned Single Judge had considered the contentions and had found that the dispute with regard to the loan availed by respondents No.1 to 4 and the sale of the property by the Bank had been considered and decided on 12.11.2007 by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in WA No.580/2007. The Division Bench found that the sale of the property in question for Rs.35,00,000/- was not proper and in view of the fact that an offer was made by one Sri Puttaswamy Gowda- respondent No.5 for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, the said offer was accepted by this Court and the sale proceedings and the sale certificate issued were set aside and the sale was directed to be confirmed in favour of respondent No.5 for the amount offered by him. The Division - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10653-DB WA No. 238 of 2021 Bench had also considered the claims with regard to interest and directed payments to the prior purchaser under the sale certificate as well as refund of an amount of Rs.1,03,830/- to respondents No.1 to 4 the owners of the property. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that at the time when the writ appeal was being considered, the question with regard to payment of municipal and other taxes was not brought to the notice of the Bench considering the matter by inadvertence. 7. However, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 would contend that payment of the amounts by the Bank from April, 2007 to June, 2007 was only to make available the land for sale and that it was an incidental expense, which was suffered by the Bank for making the property saleable. It is further contended that this fact having not been brought to the notice of the Bench which decided WA No.580/2007 on 12.11.2007 or in the later review petition, which was disposed of on 16.04.2008 or yet later in the SLP filed by the Bank before the Apex Court, the said contention cannot be raised as a separate transaction. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10653-DB WA No. 238 of 2021 8. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the learned Single Judge has considered the specific contentions raised by the appellant and has held specifically at paragraphs No.18 and 19 of the judgment under review as follows: "18. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of WA No.580/2007 pending between the parties, the petitioner-Bank seems to have paid the amount towards commercial tax and municipal tax on 17.04.2007, 12.06.2007 and 05.06.2007. Admittedly, writ appeal came to be allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.11.2007. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the review petition filed by the Bank as well as the second respondent to review the order dated 12.11.2007 made in WA No.580/2007, the petitioner-Bank has not brought to the notice of this Court the payment made towards Commercial tax and municipal tax on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 when proceedings had reached finality. It is not open for the petitioner- Bank once again to initiate proceedings afresh under Section 70 of the Act when the claim made by the petitioner-Bank has already culminated into a proceedings in JRH/DDS/526/2002-03 dated 20.03.2003 and it is open for the petitioner - Bank to file a fresh dispute, in the absence of any liberty - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10653-DB WA No. 238 of 2021 reserved by this Court in WA No.580/2007 dated 12.07.2007. 19. It is also not in dispute that petitioner - Bank and second respondent filed review petition before the Division Bench of this Court in Review petition Nos.118/2008 and 141/2008 and the Division Bench of this Court, rejected the review petition filed by the petitioner-Bank and allowed the review petition filed by the second respondent holding that the second respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,03,830/- payable by the Bank. The said amount according to the second respondent is not paid by the petitioner - Bank. In the absence of any liberty reserved by this Court during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner - Bank ought to have paid the amount to the second respondent." 9. We notice that the amount allegedly having been paid by the appellant on 17.04.2007, 12.06.2007 and 05.06.2007 while the writ appeal was pending, it was for the Bank to have brought the fact of this payment to the notice of the Bench deciding the writ appeal. Having not chosen to do so, we are of the opinion that raising of the dispute on the ground that it is a separate transaction and a separate cause of action, was completely devoid of merits. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10653-DB WA No. 238 of 2021 10. We find no material to disagree with the findings of the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is therefore fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41