- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39531 WP No. 27118 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 27118 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. N. NAGARAJA S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O. N. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT: NO.4/1, TALAGUNDAPURAHALLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101. 3. SRI. MULABAGALAPPA S/O. KUVVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.145, TALAGUNDAPURAHALLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHASHIKUMAR .R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. VISHALA SAMRUDDHI SOUHARDA COOPERATIVE LTD., OFFICE AT NO.21A, GROUND FLOOR, G.M. TOWER, 1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO, VENUGOPALA .K., S/O. KRISHNA REDDY. (THE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT) 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (R-441) Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39531 WP No. 27118 of 2025 AND ARBITRATION COURT, KARNATAKA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA, NO.62, 2ND FLOOR, MARGOSA ROAD (3RD MAIN), 18TH CROSS, PIPELINE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 18.01.2021 PASSED BY THE R2 IN DISPUTE NO. DRD/ KA RA SOW. SAM. SA. NI/11410/2019-20 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.04.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO. 177/2022 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B) AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court seeking issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 18.01.2021 passed by respondent No.2 in Dispute No.DRD/KA.RA.SOW.SAM.SA.NI/11410/2019-20 and also the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the KAT') in CO-OP Appeal No.177/2022 and to furnish the statements of loan disbursement and repayment made by the petitioners etc. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39531 WP No. 27118 of 2025 2. Facts of the case in brief according to respondent No.1 are that the petitioners have availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest. However, they have not repaid the loan as agreed. Therefore, an application was submitted before respondent No.2 to pass an award against the petitioners herein. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies as an Arbitrator passed the award dated 18.01.2021 directing the petitioners to pay the loan amount with interest. Being aggrieved by the award passed by respondent No.2, the petitioners have approached KAT in Appeal No.177/2022. The KAT on consideration of the contentions raised by petitioners, passed the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 dismissing the appeal and confirming the award passed by respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court. 3. Heard Sri. Shashikumar.R, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 4. In light of the rival contentions urged by learned Counsel for both parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39531 WP No. 27118 of 2025 " Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by respondent No.2 therein and the judgment passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal? My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though it is contended by respondent No.1 that loan of Rs.3,00,000/- was obtained by the petitioners, only an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs was disbursed. Ignoring these facts, respondent No.2 as well as KAT, rejected the contention taken by the petitioners. It was the contention of the petitioners before the KAT that the notice was not served on them by respondent No.2 before passing impugned award and therefore the same is to be set-aside. The same was considered by the KAT at length in the impugned judgment to hold that there are sufficient materials to hold that the notice was infact served on the petitioners even though the award came to be passed during pandemic. Strangely, this contention now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was never raised before the KAT. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39531 WP No. 27118 of 2025 Now, the petitioners are raising completely a new ground to challenge the impugned award on the ground that even though Rs.3,00,000/- was sanctioned as loan by respondent No.1, only an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs was disbursed. No prima facie materials are placed before this Court to substantiate the same. Moreover, there is no explanation as to why such ground was never raised before KAT or before the Arbitrator. 6. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have not made out any ground to set-aside either the award dated 18.01.2021 passed by respondent No.2 or the judgment dated 15.04.2025 passed by the KAT. Since the petition is devoid of merits, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18