- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 7631 OF 2020 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) SRI V KRISHNAIAH, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. SRI K CHELUVARAJU, S/O. V KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 1(b) SRI K NARAYAN MUDALIAR, S/O V KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 1(c) SRI K SRINIVAS, S/O V KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 2. 2(a) SMT. CHANDRAKANTHA, SINCE DECEASED BY SRI N. SATISH KUMAR, S/O SRI NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 2(b) SMT. VIJAYA, D/O SRI NARAYANASWAMY, W/O SRI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 3. SMT. K SARASWATHI, D/O. V KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 ALL ARE R/AT NO. 150/131, 9TH MAIN, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, WILSONGARDEN, BENGALURU-560 030. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI S V BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018. REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BANGALORE SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 018. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (R.441), ARBITRATION CELL, K.S.C. URBAN BANKS FEDERATION LTD., BENGALURU-560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G CHANDRASEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE R-3 IN DISPUTE NO.JRD/UBF/T-2732/2005-06 DATED 12.01.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL NO.315/2012 DATED 15.2.2019 WHICH IS DISMISSED BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-P ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are the legal heirs of one Sri.V.Krishnaiah have called in question the award passed by respondent No.3-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies ('JRCS' for short) dated 12.01.2012 at Annexure- K and the order of dismissal of Appeal No.315/2012 dated 15.02.2019 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru ('Tribunal' for short) confirming the order of respondent No.3 at Annexure-P. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1-Bank raised a dispute against Sri.V.Krishnaiah in May 1996 for default of the loan amount. The Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (‘ARCS’ for short) passed the order in favour of respondent No.1-Bank, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Tribunal contending that the award was void as it was passed against a deceased person Sri.V.Krishnaiah, who had died on 06.09.1994, even before the initiation of proceedings by respondent No.1-Bank, the Tribunal remanded the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 matter back to the JRCS for fresh consideration. The petitioners preferred writ petition challenging the order of remand which came to be disposed of with observation that they could raise the issue of the proceedings being initiated against a dead person before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the petitioners' revision petition, directed the ARCS to reconsider the legal heirs substitution and whether the proceedings initiated against the deceased person was void. The matter was transferred to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (“JRCS” for Short) who passed an order allowing the substitution of the legal heirs on contest, petitioners preferred revision petition before the Tribunal, which came to be dismissed, aggrieved the petitioners preferred writ petition before this Court in WP No.7275/2007. 3. This Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and the JRCS and observed that it is open for the Bank to pursue the matter against the present petitioners only in the existing capacity as legal heirs, keeping open - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 all the contentions of the petitioners. The order passed in W.P.No.7275/2007 was challenged in W.A.No.1677/2009 by the Bank, the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7275/2007. The matter thus stood remanded to the JRCS-the authority under the impugned order at Annexure-K. 4. The JRCS after the proceedings were remanded, issued notice to the petitioners i.e., the legal heirs of deceased V.Krishnaiah through RPAD dated 29.07.2011, which covers were returned unserved and paper publication was taken and on consideration, the JRCS ordered that the petitioners though served with the notice, they have chosen to remain unrepresented and on considering the material on record passed impugned order at Annexure-K holding that the petitioners herein were liable to pay the loan amount which was due by V.Krishnaiah. Appeal was preferred with a delay of one year before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while appreciating - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 the material placed before it, confirmed the order passed by the JRCS, against which, the petitioners are before the Court in this writ petition. 5. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, learned AGA for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings initiated by the bank is void ab initio, as the proceedings were initiated against the dead person, drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure-H-the order in W.P.No.7275/2007, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the bank ought to have initiated fresh proceedings without continuing with the same proceedings and the decision of this Court in W.P.No.7275/2007 is totally misconstrued by the JRCS and the Tribunal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Bank supporting the objections statement submits that this Court in W.P.No.7275/2007 had reserved liberty to respondent No.1-Bank to pursue the matter against the present petitioners only in the existing capacity as legal heirs, which status, the petitioners themselves had described in the appeal and the Bank which had already bought the legal heirs on record, continued the recovery proceedings against the petitioners as legal representatives and the impugned order at Annexure-K has been passed against the LRs of the petitioners. It was submitted that the petitioners were aware about the order passed in W.P.No.7275/2007 and confirmed in W.A.No.1677/2009, which granted liberty to the bank to pursue the matter against the petitioners and the order did not indicate that a fresh proceedings has to be initiated. 8. Even for the sake of the arguments, it is submitted that before the JRCS, the petitioners were - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 issued with notice through RPAD and by way of paper publication and having taken all the necessary steps as required, the petitioners have been wilfully abstained themselves before the JRCS and the impugned order came to be passed on considering the material on record. Further, the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record has rightly confirmed the order passed by the JRCS. 9. Learned AGA places the original record, the proceedings recorded before the JRCS, and about the steps taken for issuance of notice to the petitioners, and the paper publication taken by way of substituted service. On perusal of the original records, the records are returned back to AGA. 10. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is, 'Whether the respondent No.1 was justified in continuing the proceedings against the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 petitioners as legal heirs and whether a separate proceedings ought to have been initiated by the bank against the petitioners in the present facts and circumstances of the case?' 11. Undisputedly, V.Krishnaiah had obtained loan from respondent No.1-Bank who was the father of the petitioners. The dispute was raised against V.Krishnaiah on 31-05-1996 before the ARCS. As on the date of initiation of the proceedings, V.Krishnaiah was no more, which is not in dispute and an order came to be passed against a dead person. The same came to be challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated were against a dead person and it is illegal, and remanded the matter to ARCS for fresh consideration. Before ARCS, respondent No.1-Bank filed applications under Order XXII Rule 4, Order XXII Rule 9 CPC and also under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to bring the legal heirs of deceased- V.Krishnaiah on record who are the petitioners herein. The said applications were allowed, against which petitioners - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 preferred Review Petition in RP.No.97/2002 before the Tribunal, contending that the IAs were allowed without affording an opportunity and the proceedings were against a dead person is Void ab initio. The revision petition was allowed by the Tribunal and the matter was remitted with a direction to reconsider IAs to bring the petitioners on record as LRs of V.Krishnaiah. The matter was then transferred to the JRCS. JRCS allowed the applications and permitted the petitioners to come on record as the legal heirs of the deceased-V.Krishnaiah. Challenging the same, the petitioners again preferred revision petition before the Tribunal and the order came to be passed dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners herein. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed W.P.No.7275/2007 seeking to quash the order passed by the JRCS and the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. This Court in W.P.No.7275/2007 passed the following order: "28. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the original authority - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 Annexures 'F' & 'G' are quashed by issue of a Writ of Certiorari. It is open to the Bank to pursue the matter against the present petitioners only in the existing capacity as legal heirs, which status petitioners themselves had described in their appeal before the Tribunal in the earlier round and it is also made clear that it is open to the present writ petitioners to urge all such legal contentions as may be open to them in the further proceedings before the Arbitrator." (Emphasis Supplied) 12. The Bank preferred appeal in W.A.No.1677/2009 and the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order: "17.For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the orders at Annexures-F & G. reserving liberty to the appellant herein to pursue the matter against the respondents in accordance with law." 13. The order of remand passed by the Appellate Tribunal stood confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.7275/2007 and in W.A.No.1677/2009 with an - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 opportunity to the petitioners to put forth all their contentions before the appropriate forum. Now the petitioners want to submit that a fresh proceedings have to be initiated for the petitioners to be made liable for discharging the liability covered under the impugned award. The material on record, more particularly, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7275/2007 at paragraph No.28 and in W.A.No.1677/2009 at paragraph No.17 clearly indicate that this Court in clear terms provided the bank an opportunity to pursue the matter against the petitioners as legal heirs and also granted liberty to the petitioners keeping open all the contentions. The order in W.P.No.7275/2007 did not indicate for the petitioners to contend that a separate or a fresh proceedings have to be initiated against the petitioners herein. The contention that the petitioners were not served with the notice before the ARCS/JRCS cannot be accepted for the sole reason that the petitioners were issued with notice, the petitioners participated in all the proceedings before the JRCS, the Tribunal and before this - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 Court in W.P.No.7275/2007 and in W.A.No.1677/2009 and were aware of the proceedings, respondent No 1-Bank had brought the legal heirs on record, continued the proceedings against the petitioners as legal representatives, the petitioners wilfully abstain themselves from the proceedings before JRCS, the principles of natural justice cannot be extended to such an extent that a party would abuse the process of law, neither should be misused to delay or frustrate the legal proceedings. The petitioner has a fair chance but chose not to utilise it, natural justice applies only when there is a real denial of opportunity not when a party fails to act despite having one. For the forgoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered holding that the initiation of proceedings by the Bank was justified to proceed against the petitioners as legal representatives in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7275/2007 and the petitioners have not made out any grounds warranting any interference by this Court and this court pass the following: - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:4814 WP No. 7631 of 2020 ORDER i. The petition is dismissed as devoid of merits with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within two weeks from the date of release of the order. ii. The impugned award passed by respondent No.3-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 12.01.2012 at Annexure-K and the order of dismissal of Appeal No.315/2012 dated 15.02.2019 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru confirming the order of respondent No.3 at Annexure-P are hereby confirmed. Sd/- _______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47