Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
HARKISHAN DASS AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/11/1995
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 32 JT 1995 (8) 335
1995 SCALE (6)349
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
dismissed the writ petition of the appellants in limine,
which has given rise to this appeal.
On the bare outlines of the matter, it is clear that
there is not much scope for interference at our end. The
appellants are heirs and legal representatives of Mathura
Parshad, deceased, cashier-cum-member of the Cooperative
Society, respondent no.3. On his demise, it was discovered
that he had defalcated large sums of money of the Society.
Since a dispute arose between the Society and its deceased
member, about the recovery thereof, the heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased, Mathura Parshad were made
to face proceedings. An arbitrator was appointed to go into
the matter in accordance with the provisions of Sections 55
and 56 of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. An
award was made by the Arbitrator against the appellants,
being heirs and legal representatives of Mathura Parshad,
deceased, not only for the principal amount found due, but
also for the liability to pay interest at the rate of 16 per
cent per annum and costs at the rate of 2 per cent on the
sum awarded. On appeal before the Deputy Secretary of the
Department, at the instance of the appellants, the liability
to pay the principal sum was sustained but rest of the award
i.e. pertaining to interest and costs was struck off. The
appellants’ writ petition, as said before, was dismissed in
limine by the High Court, repelling the plea raised that the
dispute did not squarely fall within the purview of Section
55 and 56 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.
Though the order of the High Court in sum and substance
is in approval of the orders of the departmental officers,
one claim however, laid in the writ petition, needs to be
highlighted. That was contained in ground (j) in paragraph
11 of the writ petition. It is reproduced hereafter:
"(J) That in any case, the liability on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the petitioners cannot exceed the
interest devolved upon the petitioners
from late Mathura Parshad. Late mathura
Parshad had no bank balance and no
property of his. All that he had was a
share in the ancestral house in which
some of the petitioners established,
then cannot exceed the share of mathura
Parshad in that house."
This was a valid plea. All the same the dismissal of
the writ petition cannot have the effect of wiping out such
plea which would remain alive when the question of recovery
would arise. This plea was personal to the appellants. They
cannot be held liable personally for the liability of late
mathura Parshad except to the extent of interest devolved
upon them from mathura Prasad. If such plea is raised as
defence in an appropriate forum, that plea shall not be shut
out merely on account of the dismissal of the writ petition.
No bar of res judicata would be valid to the thwart such
defence as and when raised as such matter was not, and could
not be, directly and substantially in issue. With this
clarification, the appeal stands disposed of. No costs.