- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31078 WP No. 10669 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10669 OF 2017 (CS-DAS) BETWEEN: H.K. SADASHIVA S/O SRI. C. KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MALAMBI VILLAGE, SHANIVARASANTHE POST, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 235. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LOKESH C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. M/S INDIAN COFFEE MARKETING CO-OP. LTD., (COMARK) NO. 510, 1ST FLOOR, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, P.B. NO.167, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN DISPUTE NO.RCS/DIS/D1/1266/1997-98 AND QUASH THE ORDER/ AWARD DATED 16.08.2013 PASSED IN DISPUTE Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31078 WP No. 10669 of 2017 NO.RCS/DIS/D1/1266/1997-98 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an award dated 16.08.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 in dispute No.RCS/DIS/D1/1266/1997-98, by which he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,39,773.60/-, which was allegedly paid to the him in excess than his entitlement. 2. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as an agent by the respondent No.2 in terms of an agreement dated 28.01.1994 to procure coffee beans from in and around Kodagu District. He contends that he was authorised to buy coffee beans from the growers on outright basis and also on consignment basis. In outright basis, he would pay the value of the coffee beans on the spot, while in consignment basis, he would pay 60% to 70% of the total value and the balance would be paid at the time of final settlement, which depended on the instructions given by the growers as to when the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31078 WP No. 10669 of 2017 consignment had to be sold. The petitioner claims that he used to maintain different receipts for goods procured on outright basis and on consignment basis respectively. He claims that during 1993-94, there was no supply of receipt books for purchasing coffee beans on consignment basis. The petitioner was instructed by the respondent No.2 to use the receipt books pertaining to outright purchase. Accordingly, he continued to purchase coffee beans and supplied it to the respondent No.2 and after verification, the respondent No.2 would pay 75% of the bill amount through cheques duly drawn in favour of the growers and thereafter, the final bill would be settled by drawing up cheques in favour of the growers and the agreed commission would be paid to the petitioner. 3. (i) The petitioner claims that though the respondent No.2 had settled the bills, it issued a notice dated 03.02.1997 calling upon him to pay Rs.1,39,773.60/- claiming it to be the due amount payable by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he submitted all the details of the accounts pertaining to the transactions brought about by him. Despite that the respondent No.2 raised a dispute under Section 74 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1994, claiming a sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31078 WP No. 10669 of 2017 Rs.1,39,773.60/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 01.04.1995 to 31.08.1997. The petitioner entered appearance and filed his objections contending that the dispute was not maintainable and that he was not liable to pay any amount. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.1 without hearing him, passed an award dated 31.03.2005 but failed to communicate it. On coming to know of the award, he filed W.P.No.12/2009 on the ground that he was not provided with an opportunity of being heard and that the impugned award was not a speaking one. This Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 01.06.2009 and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/-. It also directed the respondent No.1 to rehear the matter. (ii) The petitioner claims that after remand, the respondent No.2 as well as he adduced evidence and marked documents. The respondent No.1 without considering the documents furnished by the petitioner, only referred to the documents marked by the respondent No.2 and passed an order dated 16.08.2013 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,39,773.60/- along with interest at 6% per annum. The respondent No.1 also failed to communicate this award to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31078 WP No. 10669 of 2017 petitioner as required under law. However, he came to know of the award when the officials of the respondent No.2 went to his house. Being aggrieved by the award, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the agreement dated 28.01.1994, the petitioner was bound to first pay the growers and thereafter transport the coffee beans to the warehouses of the respondent No.2 and only after being satisfied about the quality and quantity, would the respondent No.2 release payment payable to the growers along with the petitioners commission. He therefore contends that the question of the respondent No.2 paying any excess does not arise. He also contends that in respect of consignment sales, the cheques were drawn by the respondent No.2 favouring the growers and therefore, no payment is made to the petitioner. Besides this, he contends that no grower has ever complained to the respondent No.2 about non-payment of his dues. He therefore contends that the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 was wholly without any basis. He also contended that the respondent No.2 did not adduce the evidence of the person who conducted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31078 WP No. 10669 of 2017 the audit and did not produce the register meant for the payments made to agents as per the agreement dated 28.01.1994. He also contends that the respondent No.2 is making a claim in respect of payments made to others based on a power of attorney allegedly executed by the petitioner and that the respondent No.2 failed to produce that power of attorney. He therefore contends that there is no clarity as to whether the respondent No.2 had made any excess payment to the petitioner or to someone else. He contends that this is being done, only to shift the blame onto the petitioner and protect from some unknown person responsible for it. 5. (i) Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable, as the appropriate remedy is to file an appeal before the Tribunal. He contends that the impugned order is passed based on the material produced by the respondent No.2, which probabilized that the petitioner was due to pay a sum of Rs.1,39,773.60/-. He therefore contends that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to establish that he was not liable to pay the amount. He contends that the petitioner did - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31078 WP No. 10669 of 2017 not dispute the entries made in the ledgers and therefore, the respondent No.1 was justified in passing the impugned award. (ii) The respondent No.2 though served with the notice has not appeared. Therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions of the respondent No.2. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as an agent by the respondent No.2, in terms of an agreement dated 28.01.1994. This agreement inter alia contained the following terms: (i) That the agent shall collect coffee and make payment to growers at rates specified by COMARK for various types of coffee and obtained reimbursement from COMARK. (ii) That COMARK shall provide registers and forms for maintenance of accounts. (iii) That the agents shall be responsible for any shortage in weight and for any destructions, deterioration or damage to the coffee upto the time of receipt of the same at the COMARK’s premises. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31078 WP No. 10669 of 2017 (iv) That the agents shall transport the goods so collected as early as possible to COMARK godown as specified from time to time. (v) That COMARK shall return the gunny bags sent by the agent. (vi) That COMARK shall reimburse the amount paid by the agent to the growe rafter receiving the goods at the COMARK’s godown at the earliest. (vii) That COMARK shall reimburse that transport charges as per rates prescribed by COMARK. (viii) That COMARK shall cover interest charges incurred by the agent towards the payment made to the growers. 8. The aforesaid arrangement would indicate that the petitioner was bound to collect quality coffee beans as specified by COMARK and supply it to the godowns of COMARK at the earliest possible. The payment for the goods supplied had to be paid by COMARK after receipt of the goods at the godown specified. This therefore meant that the petitioner had to first pay the growers and supply it to COMARK and claim reimbursement of the amounts paid. Now that it is stated by the petitioner that purchase on consignment basis was also allowed, though it was not mentioned in the agreement, it was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31078 WP No. 10669 of 2017 incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to establish beyond doubt about the quantity and quality of the coffee bean supplied, its value and the corresponding amounts paid in excess by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 in its evidence before the respondent No.1 admitted that a separate register was meant to be kept in respect of each agent. However, the said register was not produced at the enquiry. It is also evident from the impugned award that the brother of the petitioner had adduced evidence stating that the respondent No.2 had not paid any money in excess to the petitioner. In view of the arrangement between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to produce clinching material to show that it had paid advance to the petitioner and that the petitioner had not supplied the corresponding quantity of coffee beans. The respondent No.2 except producing the notices issued to the petitioner, did not produce enough material to establish that the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of any amount in excess of what he was entitled to. As a matter of fact in the course of cross-examination of the representative of the respondent No.2, he deposed as follows: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31078 WP No. 10669 of 2017 “KeÉAljUÉ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉ£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß M¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ." He also stated that “KeÉAljAzÀ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀwAiÀiÁV®èªÉA§ §UÉÎ ¨É¼ÉUÁgÀjAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀÄ §A¢®èªÉA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÉÄAzÀÄ M¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ." He also admitted "PÀgÁj£À°è §rØ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß M¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”. He further deposed, “¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ªÉÇÃZÀgï ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸À» ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ C®èzÉà ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀzÀ°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¬ÄAzÀ C¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃw ¥ÀqÉzÀ C¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹®è”. 9. The respondent No.2 was therefore bound to produce the vouchers and the power of attorney executed by the petitioner authorising the payment to such persons. The respondent No.2 could therefore not have based its claim on the registers maintained by it. Under this circumstance, the respondent No.1 without considering this, has relied upon the document submitted by the respondent No.2 and has passed the impugned award. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31078 WP No. 10669 of 2017 10. It is not in dispute that a remedy of an appeal is available to the petitioner and this Court should not ordinarily exercise jurisdiction when an alternative remedy is available. This petition was filed in the year 2017 while the proceedings were pending before the respondent No.1 since the year 2009 and therefore, no purpose would be served in remitting the case back to the respondent No.1 or before the Tribunal. 11. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order/award passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside and the petition filed by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44