Smt v. Aruna, W/o. vs Ashok Rao, Major Rlio

3. Smt.VAruna, W/o.,V.Ashok Rao, Flio.1-2-31,Sai Krupa Towers,F,lot No.C_1 Domalguda, Hyderabad.

4. R. P..Singh, S/o. H.N.Sharma, No.41 1, Raghava Ratna Towers,Chirag Ali Lane Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2,4 & 5 5. The commissioner of cooperation & Reoistrar of cooperative, societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabid.

6. Sri T.Sreenivasulu, District Cooperative Officer, Enquiry Officer, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. I-oI: , Rg:pgldents 6 & 7 are impteaded as per Court Order dated 11-12_ 2008 in WAMP.No.3304 ot 20081 ....RESPONDENTS/PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 6 & 7 I.A. NO: 2 OF 2008(WAMP NO:3368 0F 2008) Petition under section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hig! court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the judgment and order dated 2611112008 in wp No. 3574 of 2001 in so far as it has imposed the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the appellant Society and also directed the commissioner and Registrar of cooperative societies to initiate appropriate proceedings either under Sec.51 of 52 of the A.P.cooperative societies Act, 1964 to enquire into the affairs of the society and the consequential order of the commissioner of cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative societies, A.p., Hyderabad, in proceedings Rc.No.2B1 1 3/2008-HG 1, dated o6t 1212008 pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for Appellant : SRI C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for Respondent No.1 : SRI SUNIL B.GANU Sr. COUNSEL FOR SRI. T.S. PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel forRespondent Nos.2 & 3 : Ms. B.MOHANA REDOy, LEARNED G.p FOR COOPERATION Counsel for Respondent No.4 : SRI SATHVIK MAKUNUR Counsel for Respondent No.S : SRI p.SRl RAGHU RAM Counsel for lmplead Respondents 6 & 7 : SRI p.KAMLAKAR The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: - 1 THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUt AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA, WRIT APPEAL Nos.1698 AND 1725 OF 2OO8 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble SmL Justice Renuka Yara,t: I-{eard Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel for the appellart in v\/.A.No.1698 of 20O8, Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel lbr the appellant in W.A.No.7725 of !1008 and respon<lent Nc,.4 in W.A.No.1698 of 2OO8 and Sri Sunil B Ganu, leamed Senio'r- Counsel appearing for Sri T.S.Praveer, Kumar, learned counsr:r for respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.1698 tLnd 1725 of 2OO8. Perused the record.

2. 'lhe abo,re intra court appea,ls are preferred aggrieved by the orcler date,-l 26.1L.2018 passed by the learned Singr,le Judge in W.P.No.3574 ol 2OOl, whereby the judgmer-rt passed by the Co operative l'ribunal, Hyderabad (for short, 'the TriL,unai') in CTA No.182 oi 1997 dated 30.1 1.20O was set aside cr:nfrrming the order passed by the Arbitrator in ASRC No.4 of 191t4, dated

10.05.1995 1,1' transferring plot No.1O12 and the writ petitioner's mcrnbership in favour of respondent Nos.'+ and 5 is vitiatecl by fra tLd and the ownership of plot No. 10 1 2 and the I I]AC,J ISPJ ) & R\"J wA.Nos. ib98 Ir 1725 of1008 2 membership in the Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad (for short, the Society') was directed to be restored in favour of the writ petitioner' a The parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. Brief facts of the case:

4. The writ petitioner-Dr. S.K. Singh is the member of Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad' He was allotted plot No.1012 uide allotrlent letter dated O4.O8. 1975. The writ petitioner is a resident of tlnited States of America (USA) and is represented by his nephew Dinesh Singh' The said plot was not amenable to him on account of its rocky topography, as such, made requests to respondent No'3-society to provide an alternative plot in the place of plot No'1012' While the things stood thus, on 22'03'1993, respondent No'4 fabricated documents dated 04.O5' 1992 and 04 07 '1992 and an affidavit dated' 06.07.1992 containing forged signatures of writ petitioner and got the membership as well as plot No' 1O12 transferred to her name and thus, the membership of writ petitioner was transferred in favor-rr of respondent No'4 through ) \ 7 ) HAC,J (SP,J) & R\',.,1 WA Nos I rr98 &. 172i oI 2008 _1 resolution dated 3O.O7.1992 passed by the society. Consequently, respondent No.4 became member of rer;pondent No.3 socien' with effect from 16.11.1992. At this juncture, the writ petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No.3 society in December, l9()2 enquiring about his plot and allotment of an alternative plo.. Respondent No.3 gave reply dated 05 01.1993 informing that his membership as well as plot were transferred to respondent No.4 on the basis of letter dated O4.O7.1992 and aflidavit clatecl 06.07. 1992. The writ petitioner addressed a letter dated 22 .03. 1993 to respondent No.3-society derrying his relationship rvith respondent No.4-V.Aruna and denying authorship of the letter dated 04.O7. 1992 and affidar it dated

06.O7 .1992 anrl requested for restoration of his memberr;hip and re-transfer of tl're plot in his favour. While so, respondent No.3- society informed the writ petitioner about there b,:ing no procedure for le-transfer and advised him to find )ris own remedy. Aggf rerved by the response of the responder rt No.3- society, the u,rit petitioner filed ASRC No.4 of 1994 bi:fore an Afitrator. Th,: said ASRC No.4 of 1994 has been disPosed of tr}sferring the membership and plot in favour of t he rn rit petitioner n'hile. declaring the transfer of said members,-rip and plot in favour ol respondent No.4 as void in law. The learned I HAC,] ISRII & RY,J wA Nos I bgtl & 1725 ol2OO8 4 Arbitrator ordered respondent No'3-socie$r to restore the plot in favour of writ petitioner and to cancel the membership of respondent No.4 and to restore the membership of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the said Award' respondent No'3- society approached the Tribunal by filing CTA No' 182 of 1997 ' The Tribuna-l dealt with the matter and has set aside the Award giving liberty to respondent No'3-society to consider the request of the writ petitioner in allotting another plot to him' if he is not otherwise disqualifred. Aggrieved by the same' a writ petition uideW.P.No.3ST4of20olwaslrledchallengingthefrndings made by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge had taken up a detailed scrutiny of the fact situations as well as the documents hled by the writ petitioner and the hndings of the Arbitrator as wellastheTribunal,andthroughadetailedorderdiscussing thecontentsofthedocuments{iledbyboththepartiesand conduct of troth the parties, allowed the Writ Petition setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal confirming the Award passed by the Arbitrator, which led to the filing of the present writ appeals. ) ) HAC,J (SP.i) & R\ ,J WA.Nos. 1698 & 172 > of 2008 5 Contentions of res ondent No.S in the writ pelitiq4 lrespondent No.S in W.A.No.1725 of 2OO8 and writ appell44t in W.A.No.1698 of 2OO8l are as follows

5. Learne,l r:ounsel for respondent No.5 would fair [y submit that he does not intend the challenge the merits of the order passed b1. thr: learned Single Judge. However, it is submitted that ail the re cluirements of a bona ftde transfer are fr tlhlled by responclent N,r.S in the transfer of the subject plot 1C12 from the ostensible ,.)u'ners i.e. respondent No.3-society and V.Aruna. It is submitterl that the writ petitioner himself is respo nsitrle for creation of' tlrird party rights on account of failurt to take diligence actions lollowing the alleged fraudulent trarsactions. It is submitte,l that all misrepresentations need not amount to fraud. Even tlrough there is no relationship betu,een respondent No.4 and respondcnt No.S, there is no intention of deceiving any of the parties zrnd therefore, there is no fraud. It is c cntended that the ol)se rvation of the learned Single Judge ab out non- exercise of reasonable care in ascertaining the transfer in favour of respondent No.5 is devoid of correct appreciation of facts. Since responrient No.3-society has passed a resohttion for I trfnsfer and respondent No.S has fulfrlled a1l the reqlrirements of a bona fide purchaser, the finding of the learned Sinl,de Judge / HAC,J (SPJ) & RY,J WA.Nos.l698 & 1725 ol 2OOB 6 is perverse. Lastly, it is contended that the writ petitioner has filed a criminal complaint uide C'C'No 1077 of 2OO0 and civil suit in O.S.No.5422 of 1998 before the III Junior Civil Judge' City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of title and possession, wherein, the burden of proof is on the writ petitioner and the appellant will not have a fair chance to represent his case. Lastly, a reference is made to the finding of the learned Single Judge which is extracted below: "The Tribunat further failed to consider the documcntary evidence hled before the Arbitrator, the authenticity of which is not and for that matter cannot be disputed' which established beyond any pale of doubt that Exs'83 to E}5' the two letters and the afhdavit are forged and to establish this fact lhere was no need for the presence of the petitioner'" Learned counsel for respondent No'S vehemently argued 6. that the learned Single Judge cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to give hnding of fact about the nature' of Exs'B3 to 85 forged documents. Since the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to give a finding about the forgery being committed to create Exs.B3 to 85, it is argued that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside' ) ) l HAC,J (ST'J ) & RY,.J WA.Nos 16q8 & 1 725 )f 2OO8 7 Contentions of res ndeat No.3-socie lappellant in W.A.No. 1725 of 2OQ8 and respondent No.4 in in the writ etition o W.A.No. 1698 of 2OO8

7. Learned r--ounsel for respondent No.S-society arg'red that th'e Tribunal h a s rightly appreciated the facts on the basis of record made available to it, whereas the same is not the case before the Arbitrator. It is pointed out that the Award passed by the learned Artritrator does not contain Appendlx of ':vidence with list of s'ittresses or exhibits, except for making reft'rence to Exhibits markr'cl bv both the parties and the oral eviden:e led in the text of the As,ard. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the original power of attorney of the GPA holder of :he nrit petitioner was not available be,fore the Tribunal and tht:refore, the ltndings given by the Tribun:il on the basis of the documents made available is proper and orrght not to have been rset aside. tt is argued that the socie[z was compelled to f le the appeal before the Tribunal on account of the unjustifiaL,le remarks made by the Arbitrato r about respondent Nc.3 society colluding with respondellt No.4 irrespective oi tl-re lact that the Secretary of the society deposed .: that the socit'lv u,ould abide by the Ar,r,ard passed by the Arbitrator. The counsel for respondent No.3 denied th,: 5e6i.1, I I I i i i i t HAC,J (SPJ) & RY,J WA.Nos.1698 &, 1725 ot 2ooa 8 encouraging transfer of plots on the basis of false claim of relationship in violation of the bye-laws lt is also contended that the learned Single Judge does not have jurisdiction to direct the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to initiate action under Section 51 or 52 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') against the Co-operative Society while deciding the issue involved in the writ petition i'e' learned Single Judge travelled beyond the scope of the writ by ordering enquiry' It is also contended that the Registrar of Co-operative Society has no power or jurisdiction to take action under Section 51 or 52 of the Act for the purpose of evolving proper method of fraudulent transfers. Learned counsei relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sged Yakoob a' Radhakrishno:n ond otherst, wherein it is held that: "A writ of certiorari can be issued-for correcting errors of Jurisdiction commrtted by inferior courts or tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by intcrior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it' or as a resulL of failure to exercise jurisdictions A writ can similarly be issued where in excrcise ofjurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribuoal acts illegally or improperly, as for instancc. it dccides a question wlthout giving an opportunity to be heard to thc party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute rs opposed to princlples of natural justice' An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can bc corrcctcdbyawrit,butnotanerroloftact,howevergraveltmayappearrobc.ln I l96i scc onhne SC 24 ) ) 1 o HAC,.I (SPJ) & RY,.J WA.Nos. I698 & 1725 oi 2OO8 regard to a findng of lact recorded by the Tribunal, a u.ril of certiorar] can be issued if it is sho v r that in recording thc said finding, x,.crif a lirrrling of fact is based on no cvidence, that would bc rL:gz:rdcd as an error of la\(, *lrrch can be corrcctcd by a writ oI cerliorari. The adeq-rrcy or sufficiency o[evidence led on a point and the infr rencc o[ facl to be dr-awn lrom tho said finding arc within the exclusivc Jurisdictlo-1 of the Tribunal, and th€ !;aid points cannot be agitatcd be[ore a rvrit Court.,.-."

8. On the Dasis of above judgement of the Hon'ble r'iupreme Court of Inclia, the learned counsel for respondent No. )-society argued that the learned Single Judge had no occasion to venture into the hnclings of facts given by the Tribunal u,hile exercising writ jurisdictior.r Contentions of writ petitioner lRespondent No. 1 in both the Writ Appealsl:

9. Learned counsel for the u.rit petitioner vehementl.l/ argued that the hnding of the learned Singte Judge about res,pondent No.3-society indulging in fraudulent activities is apt, an,1 contra argument cannot be countenanced. It is argued that the bye- laws of respondent No.3 society permit tralsfer of plotr; by the members only in favour of their siblings/ reiatives but not third parties. In order to circumvent this rule/bye-1aw, the scciety is accepting, \\'ith full knowledge of the false afhdavits st Lbmitted by various thirrl parties claiming relationship with the rrembers ..}. I HAC,J (SPJ) & RY,J WA.Nos.1698 & 1725 of 2006 t0 and the false afhdavits hled by the members claiming relationship with third parties, in order to transfer the plots' Filing false afhdavits and claiming false relationships does amount to fraud and the same cannot be said to be a fair way of presenting facts. Therefore, it is contended that the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No'3-society are untenable.

10. Coming to the aspect of the judgment passed by the Tribunal, it is argued that the original GPA executed by the writ petitioner in favour of Dinesh Singh was filed before the Arbitrator.ThesaidGPAwasexecutedbeforeEmbassyoflndia, Washington, D.C. aud it is an authentic document' Subsequently, the said original GPA was taken back for the purpose of hling a criminal case whereas the Tribunal has given a finding that a photocopy of GPA is frled and such a frnding cannot be supported by respondent No'3-society which had full knowledge of filing of the original GPA before the Arbitrator'

11. Further, learned counsel for the writ petitioner argued that a certihed copy of the passport of the writ petitioner was filed before the Arbitrator- The said passport was certiied to be true by the Second Secretary. Embassy of India' Washington' ) ) It HAC,J (SPJ) & RY.J tVA.Nos. I69B & l72I of2OO8 D.C., 2OOO8. The certihed copy consists of 36 pag{}s in its entirety. To the contrary, the Tribunal has given an e;:roneous finding to the effect that the passport of the u,rit petitior:er was a photocopy alrcl that while making the photocopJ , certain entries may not have been photocopied. The certihed cop.r' of the passport of the writ petitioner is a crucial piece of d ccument which shorvs tl'rat the writ petitioner was not present in India at relevant poinl of time while executing the letter dated

04.O7.1992 and the alfidavit dated O6.O7. 7992 at Guntur. It is argued that strc:h erroneous frndings of the Trihunal atott the documentary evidence produced by the writ petitioner c;tnnot be sustained.

12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner referrerl to the observation mzrrle by the Arbitrator which \ ras not refr:rred by the respondents, but is relevant. The said observation is extracted belou': 'The resi ondent No.1 who has hled a Xerox copl of complai t letter gir,,: Lo the police, reveals that an cx emplo_r'ee of the societ]- )\. name D.Venkatcshwarlu has mastermincl of creaLing lre documents u.irh rcfcrcncc to sociell rccrords accessibl,: to him and arranged to cxecute the transler in favour of rr:spondent No.1"

13. It is argued that the above text extracted from the Arbitrator's order clearly reveals that one of the ex-employee of _/ \;" r HAC,J (SPJ) & RY,.J wA.Nos.1698 & 1725 ol2OOE 12 the society by name D.Venkateshwarlu has indulged in creation of documents taking aclvantage of his access to tire society records and facilitated transfer of the plot in favour of respondent No. 4-V.Aruna

14. Referring to the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.S about jurisdrction of a writ Court to dwell into facts, reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Council for Research in Agantedic Sciences and another u. Bikartan Das and other*, wherein it was held that "A writ of ccrl()r.lri can be issued for correcting errors of .jurisdiction commiltcd bv inllrior- courls or t bunals; thesc are cascs whcre orders are passr:cl bl' inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdictron, or is ir-r ei{ccss of it, or as a rcsult of failure to exercise jurisdiction conlcrred on it, the Court of Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for insrance, it decides a question without €iiving an opportuntty ro be hcard to the party affected by the order' or where the procedurc erdopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles ol natural justice. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be correctcd by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be- In rcgard to a ltnding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of ccrtlorari can be issucd iI it is shown that in recording thc said Iindlng, the Tribunal had erroncously refused to admit admissiblc ahd matcrial evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible cvidence whlch has influenced the ' (zoz:) to scc +oz ) HAC,J (SP.II & RY,.I WA. Nos I698 & I 7-15 rf 2OOa J impugne<l fLnding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based orr no cvidcncc, thaL would be regarded as an error of laq'*'hicl-r carL be correcte(l l)v a lvrit ofcertiorari. H ),\,ever, we may clarify that findings of fact based oI] -no evrdence" or purely on surmises and conjectures or pcrverse l liDts could bc challenged by way of a ccrtio.ari .rs l uch lindings ( ould be regardcd as an error of law. "r'hich T,) l)ut it pithily, certiorari shall issue to correct errots of jurisdictr,;n, that is to say, absence, excess or failurc to exercise anrl also u hcn in the exercise of undoubted .lurisdictiou. thcrc has bccn rllepallt].- It shall also lssue to correct an error in the (leci iion or dctern L-ration itself, if it is an crror manifest on the lal.c ol the proccedir gs." Analysrs qf the Court:

15. A perusal of the record, more particularl]-, tht Award passed by tl-re lt:arned Arbitrator in ASRC No.4 of 199 1, dated 1O.O5.1995 an(l the judgment of the Tribunal in CTA N,r.182 of 1997 , dated .3O. 1 1.2000, show certain manifest errors committecl by t)-re Tribunal in its appreciation of evidenc,: placed on record by tl-re writ petitioner. It is undisputed fact r-hat the writ petitioner-rs the original owner of plot No.1012 having been allotted in the , ear 1975. It is also an undisputed fact fhat the writ petitioner s()ught allotment of an alternative plot on account of roclq/ nature <>f the plot. While said correspondence \rr.r1s going on between the writ petitioner and respondenf No.3 society, respondent No.,1 produced the disputed Exs.84 and 85 i e. letter I HAC,J (SPJ) & RY,J WA-Nos. 1698 & 1725 ot 2008 l4 and affrdavit dated 04.07. 1992 arrd 06'07'1992 respectively' The said documents according to respondent No 4, trxs' 84 and 85 are executed by the writ petitioner transferring his membership and plot No. 1O12 in her favour' Respondent No"4 claimed to be the sister of the r'r'rit petitioner' On the basis of Exs.B4 and 85, respondent No-3 society passed a resolution dated 3O.O7.1992 transferring the membership and plot of the writ petitioner in favour of respondent No 4' After the transfer' the writ petitioner ad<lressed letter in December, 1992 to respondent No.3-society enquiring about his plot' At that time' respondent No.3 gave reply uide letter dated O5'01'1993 informing the writ petitioner that his plot and membership have been transferred in favour of respondent No'4 on the basis of Exs.B4 and E}5. Immediately, the writ petitioner informed respondent No.3-society that respondent No'4 is not his sister' that he was. not present in lnclia at Guntur on O4-O7 '1992 and Ci6.07 .lgg2 and that he did not execute Exs'B4 and E}5 documents. The writ petitioner requested the society to re- transfer the plot in his favour. The society responded stating that the bye-laws do not permit re-transfer ald therefore' the writ petitioner has to seek his own remedy' ^.\ ) JT ---------7 HAC,J (SP,l) & R\',..J WA.Nos.I()98 & 1;2., oi 2OO8 t5

16. In this entire fact pattern, the hrst crucial question that needs to be de tr:rmined is to ascertain the truth in the r.ersion of the writ petiticner's case of forging and fabrication c,f Ex.B4- letter dated Otl .O7.lgg2 and Ex.BS- affidavit dated 06.C7.1992. Since the rvrit petitioner is residing in USA, he has executed GPA at Embassy of india, Washington, D.C. in favot.rr of his nephew DineslL Singh i.e. P.W. l. Such an original GpA ,:xecuted in Indian Em bassy before a responsible officer is s ufhcient authorization ltrr P.W. 1 - Dinesh Singh to represent the writ petitioner S.K. Singh before the Arbitrator. In rhis re6.arj, the Arbitrator has r:r;nsidered the evidence of p.W. 1 Dinesh Singh on the basis o1- original GPA, whereas the Tribunal, without examining the order of the Arbitrator in its correct per.;pective, gave a hn<ling that original of Ex.A1 GpA is not produr:eci and, therefore, the evidence of p.W. l-Dinesh Singh carrnot be considered. The Tribunal proceeded to state that p.W.l, who is the GPA, has ito knowledge about the facts of the cas,e, more particulariv, al-rc,ut allotment of the plot in favour of I he writ petitioner in the year 1975, whereas the fact situation is such that P.W.1 - Dirr:sh Singh is a nephew of the writ petitiorrer and, therefore, there is likelihood of knowledge about allotrnent of plot No. t O I 2 ilr favour of the writ petitioner on acc,runt of -/l I HAC.J (SPJ) & Rv,J wA.Nos.l6q8 & I725 of 2008 l6 relationship. As sr..rch, there was a manifest in error of appreciation of documentary evidence by the Trihunal L7. Next, important fact to be considered is that the presence of the writ petitioner in India at the time of execution of Exs'B4 and 85. To prove said fact, the GPA as writ petitioner P'W' 1 got marked Ex.A2 certified copy of passport of the writ petitioner containing 36 pages and the same is certified to be a true copy by the offrcer of the Indian Embassy. On account of failure to pemse the order of the Arbitrator artd as well as failure to examine the document correctly, the Tribunal has given an erroneous finding that Ex.A2 passport pressed into service by the writ petitioner is a photocopy, lvhich cannot be relied on' Further, the Tribunal proceeded to assume and presume that certain entries might have been excluded while photocopying the passport. On account of the fact that a certifred copy of the passport is produced before the Arbitrator, the witness P'W' 1 successfully established that the writ petitioner was not present in India at Guntur at the time of execution of trxs'B4 and 85' This clearly proves the fact that the writ petitioner was not present in India and Exs. 84 and 85 are forged documents created by resPondent No.4. I ! 'r7 ), HAC,J (SPJ) & RY,, WA.Nos. I59B & l7l5 oI20O8 t7 -7

18. I-astl1'. the Tribunal further committed an error in holding that there was no evidence .before the Arbit:ator and that oral evidence of witnesses is not considered. 'lhere was both oral as r,,,r:11 as documentary evidence before the {rbitrator and the same is discussed at length by the learned Arlritrator in arriving at h is hndings about commission of liaud by respondent N,r5.J 2n6 4 in collusion and Exs.B4 and 85 being fabricatecl do< uments. Mere failure to provide an appendix of eviclence alonii r.l,ith the Award cannot be a ground to conclude that there \\.as no evidence before the Arbitrator or the evidence produced befcrre the Arbitrator on account of failure t r provide appendix of er.iclence cannot be considered. As per jurlgment of the Horrlrle Sirrpreme Court of India in Ircon Internqtiondl Lirnited o- GPT-Rahee .Ill3, strict rules of evid,rnce are inapplicabie 1'> arbitral proceedings. The Arbitral Tr ibunal is requirecl to renrlet' a decision after evaluating the materral placed before it. In-N.P.C,C. Ltd.. V. Jgoti Sarup Mittal Engineers, Contractors & Build.erS, the Honble Supreme Court held that an arbitrator 's not bound by the technical rules of ,:vidence. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Delhi '2022 SCal Onlin€ '2006 SCc onlirr. I)ec I.196 I)el 819 HAC,.' (SPJI & RY,J WA.Nos. I698 & I 725 oI2008 18 Transport Infra.structrtre Deaelopment Corporation Limited a. AOM Adaertising Private Litnitefl, the arbitral Tribunal is not bound by the rules or procedure contained in CPC and in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M'P' State Agr'o Industries Deaelopment Corporation Limited a' Murliwala Agrotech Prhnte Limite6, it is laid down in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. V. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation [Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited v' Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Coporation (2009) 8 SCC 646: (2OO9) 3 SCC (Civ) 4811. In para 98(n), the follov 'ing was stated: (n) It is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code. It may however be noticed in this regard that just because the Tribunal is not bound by the Code' it does not mean that it would be have jurisdiction to exercise powers of a court as contained in the Code "Rather' the Tribunal can travel beyond the Code of Civil Procedure zurd the only fetter that is put on its powers is to.observe the principles of natural justice." (See ICICI Ltd' V Grapco Industries Lid' [ICICI Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd', (1999) 4 SCC 71O]) As per the aforesaid judgments, the proceedings before an Arbitrator are not strictly conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 19O8 (CPC) or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, failure to strictly obsewe the t \ t 2021 scc online Del 5300 6 2025 SCC Online MP 2360 HAC,J (SPJ) & RY,J WA.Nos. 1698 & I72: ot 2OO8 l9 procedure coniemplated under Civil Procedure Code calnot be a basis for hnclir: g fault with the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator 19 . 1'he fincling of the Tribunai about the non-hling o I origindl GPA and the pilssport of the writ petitioner being a photocopy are manifest er'r'ors on the face of the record. The said lindings shou, that t he Tribunal did not exercise minimum carution in perusing the nature of documents much less their conlents. In the face of such factual errors committed by the Tribr rnal, the learned Single .Judge was under obligation to rectify the same while passing the order in the r.r,rit petition. The order p,lssed by the learned Sirrgie Judge is in the purview of the ratio Ltid down by the Hon'ble liupreme Court of India in Bikartan Dcrs's case (2 supra) u,helein it is held that a writ can be issued when a Court or Tribunill acts illegally or improperly.

20. AIso, u:hcn there is a finding of fact recordc:d by a Tribunal, v'rrt c..f. certioroi can be issued when it is showu that in recording saicl Endings the Tribunal had erroneousiy refused to admit admissitrle evidence arrd material evidence or has erroneousll aclmitted inadmissible evidence whir:h has influenced the impu[ned finding. Therefore, \\re are of the HAC,J (SPJ) & RY,J WA.Nos- 1698 er' 1725 ot 2OOa 20 considered opinion that the Tribunal has erroneously discarded the admissible and material evidence which was in the form of Ex.Al original GPA executed by the writ petitioner and Ex'A2 certifled copy of the passport of the writ petitioner' Only on account of the failure to appreciate the nature of the documents ancl the facts that are proved through said documents' the Tribunal arrived at an erroneous finding which became the subject matter of the writ petltlon. 21 . With respect to the case of respondent No'S being a bona fide purdnaser, said matter was not an issue before the Arbitrator but cropped up in the midst of litigation before the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge rightly observed the conduct of respondent No.3 and respondent No 4 for their collusion in creationofdocumentsandincreationofthirdpartyrightsand therefore gave an adverse frnding against both of them' The genesis of forgery is manifest in the observation of the learned Arbitrator about an ex-employee of the society by name D.Venkateswarlu being a mastermind in creation of documents taking advantage of his access to the records of the society' Said crucial fact is not raised any'v'rhere and also not disputed by respondent No.3 societ5z or respondent Nos' 4 and 5' Therefore' ) ) HAC,J (SPJ) & RY.J WA.Nos.I698 & l72ir ot 2OO8 2t the learned S, ngle Judge, making caustic remarks a bout the conduct of r< srpondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 is whollt justif,red. Further, r.lre dO not see any reason to interfere u,ith the direction given bv the l,ranecl Single Judge to the registratiolt of Co- operative societ\. to take action against respondent No.,3-society under Sections 51 and 52 of the 1964 Co-operative Societies Act, as the sarne is meant for disciplining responde:rt No.3- society's irregulitr activities. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not see :rnv ground to interfere with the order pilssed by the learned Sin g,le Judge.

22. In the r,:sult, the Writ Appeals are dismissed colfirming the hnding of tbe learned Single Judge in W.p.No.3574 of 2001, dated 26.11.2O 1U. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, stand d isposed , 'i. /ffRUE COPY// pending if any, _ ,o- SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI 1 , JOINT REGISTRAR l['n' ION OFFICER To Telangana at HYoerabad. (OUT)

1. Two CC's to G.F'] FOR COOPERATION' High Court for the Statt;r of 2. o;; ic to sntb v n.nuonR PRASAD, Advocate [oPUC] 5. o;; cc to SRI 'r s.RAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate [oPUC] +. On" CC to SRI P SRI RAGHU RAM, Advocate [OPUC] S. One CC to SRI SATHVIK MAKUNUR, Advocate (OPUC) 6. One CC to SRI P.KAMLAKAR, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD CoPies SA LS w I HIGH COURT DATED:0810412025 - ;., 'g s;rqfE' ,.. ,/' :"' ' ? [ IPR 2[?5 . ).\.r"\-\ .,-r'il,\ a) )- a' + COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.1698 AND 1725 ot 2008 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS. x( e