High Court · 2025

Viswa Bharathi Mutually Aided Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Registration No. AMC/HYD(U/MACS-2002(69)/CREDIT, 2-2-1132t10t1, Opp S.B.l., Shivam Road, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, Telangana. Rep by its Chief Executive Officer Sri. K. Dayanand, S/o Srinivasan Aged about 72 years, Rio Nallakunta, Hyderabad. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Co-operation and Agricultural Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. -..RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend impugned orders dated 29-10-2025, in WP.No.7569 of 2025, of the single judge and direct the respondents not take any impugned order of the single judge, pending disposal of th< rteps basing on the Vrit petition. Counsel forthe Appellant : SRI LASETTY RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI MALIPEDDI SRINI\ AS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR COOPERATI() ,l The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.14O7 OF 2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT O8.I2.2O25 Betweeen

1. Chandragiri Venkatesh and another. appellants/ respondents And 1 . Visu,a Bharathi Mutually Aided Co-operative Credit Society Limited and another. ...respondenls Mr.Lasctty Ravinder, learncd counsel appearing for the appellants.. M[. Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learncd counscl appearing for the respondent No.l (Per Hontrle Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) JUDGMENT: 1 . The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 29. 70.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.7569 of

2. The appellants are the borrowers of a loan taken from the respondent No. 1/ Society. The loan Agreement executed between the appellants and the respondent No.1/Society provides that the respondent No. 1 / Society is entitled for interest @ 2lo/o per annum compounded with monthly rests. Although the Loan Agreemcnt is \ 2 not a part o[ the Record, learned counsel : opearing lor the appellants has not disputed the interest clause r rhe Agreement. 3. The resltondent No.l/Society was the \vr I petttioner beforc the learned Single Judge r,,.ho challenged the o. e,r passed by the Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad (Tribunai) n 2g.IL2O24 in O.P.No.18 of 2O2O filed by thc rcspondenr No. I / Society for the recovcry ol Rs.45,70,0281- along with futurc ln crest at 2lc)/o per annum u,ith mor-rthly rcsts with effect from O1.l).2O,2O, from the appellants he rein (respondents before the Tribu r I t). 4 . By the order da ted 2g . I I .2024 , the Tribr nal allou,ed and disposcd of the said O.p. with a dec - e against the appellants/ respondent Nos.1 and 2 for .n amounl of Rs.45,70,O28l- r.r'ith them being jointly ancl sevt,; rlly liable to pay the aloresaid sum along with futurc intcrest @ ),lok per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisat r n and fixing the time for redemption to be six months frorn hat date. The Tribunal, however, mentioned the interest @ 21,,1 ter annum to be payable on Rs.35,OO,O0O/-. paragraph No.23 ol.the order of the Tribunal is admittedly at variance with paragrrr rh No.21 of the said order which states that the respondent No.1/Society is entitled for the Suit amount of Rs.45,70,0 2g / - .t cng with future interest @ 2 7o/o per annum, as prayed for. 3

5. The respondent No.l/Society accordingly approached the Writ Court by way of W.P.No.7569 of 2025 challenging the Tribunal's order dated 28.1\.2024 to the extent of granting furure interest Qi 2lo/o per annum on the borrowed amount of Rs.35,OO,000/ instead of the suit amount of Rs.45,70,O281- and lor granting time for redemption of a period of six months lrom that date. l.earned Single Judge accordingly modihed Paragraph No.23 o[ the Tribunal's order to the effect that the appellants/ rcspondent Nos.2 and 3 shall be jointly and sevcrally Iiablc to pay the borrowed amount of Rs.35,OO,OO0/ with tl-re agreed interest @ 21o/o per annum from the date of borrowing till date of realisation with monthly rests and if the appellants had paid any amount to the respondent No. 1/ Society during thc 'pendency of the said O.P. before the Tribunal, the same shall be reduced and interest shall be calculated accordingly. 6. Although learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants were not able to pay the agreed rate of interest due to several reasons including that of the onset of the COVID pandemic, we are of the view that the interbst @ 2lo/o per annum was f-rxed in the Loan Agreement itself. The appellants did not raise any objection with regard to the said Clause at any point of time. Nolably, the appellants also did not challenge the rate of ,l 4 interest fixed in the order passed by the Triburr Ll on 2g. I L2O24 which was also recordecl by the learned Single ,lrr lge. 7 . Wc accordingly' do not fincl any error in tl.t rmltugnr:cl order since the ordcr of the Tribunal contains an obvro s discrepancy in thc Paragraph Nos.21 and 23 thereof. 8. We accordingly do not find any merit in the ,/rit Appeal. 9. W.A.No. l4O7 ot 2025, along with all connr r Lt:d appfications, is accordingly dismissed. Tl-rcre shall be no order. s to costs. t SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR \-'.- \ /iTRUE COPY// To, 1 2 3 4 .sEcTtoN oFFtCER \ One CC to SRI LASETTY RAV|NDER, Advocate One CC to SRt MALTPEDDI SRtN|VAS REDDY, Ad)o: rre. [OpUC] Two CCs to GP FOR COOPERATION, High Court for t e State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies. D^l| - ") BSK BS YK HIGH COURT DATED:0811212025 i i l JUDGMENT WA.No.1407 of 2025. 'o: O r TEL C 1 I l ^<" \' s T L'? '.,2?r' DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS I a-r('