- (1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) Respondent No. 3 the Bhavi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Bhavi, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur is a registered society under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and the petitioners are members of respondent No. 3-Society. Respondent No. 1-Rajasthan State Co-operative Housing Finance Society Ltd., Jaipur is an apex Co-operative Society. The apex -Society makes available loan for Grah Nirman through the Primary Grah Nirman Co-operative Societies and through Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti to the members of the respective societies. Admittedly, loan was sanctioned by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 3 and in turn by respondent No. 3 to the petitioners. As the petitioners have not paid the loan amount in accordance with the terms of the agreement, an order was passed under Section 117 of the Act and proceedings had been taken up under Section 118. Notices were issued under Rule 92, subclause (3) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter). It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not liable to pay the penal interest for non-payment of the loan amount on due date as there is no provision to that effect in the agreement or relevant statute for payment of penal interest. The respondents have filed photostat copies of the agreements entered into between the petitioners and the Primary Co-operative Housing Society. Under the terms of the agreement, clause (8) provides that all instalments due from the member shall be paid by him before the 5th of every month failing or on such other date as the Managing Committee may fix for the purpose and failing which interest at double the rate of interest mentioned above on the amount of fees, instalments, etc., remaining overdue shall be charged. Therefore, under clause (8) the Society is entitled to charge double interest in case of default committed by a member and the levy of double interest against the petitioners cannot be challenged as without there being any agreed term between the parties.
(3.) It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the instalments of the loan amount on the due date but there was no person available of the Society to receive the instalment and to give the receipts and, therefore, the petitioners were not at fault and the double interest could not have been levied against them. In a return submitted by respondent No. 3, it is alleged that the statement of the petitioners is false. In fact, there is a proper office of respondent No. 3 , with a duly constituted Managing Committee functioning at Bhavi. Moreover, the personnel from respondent No. 2 also visit the respondent No. 3 and look after the functioning of respondent No. 3. It is wrong on the part of the petitioners to submit that nobody of respondent No. 3 was available to receive instalments and give receipts, excepting the petitioners hereinabove, various other members of the Society have been coming to the office of respondent No. 3 for submitting their loan instalments and have been given the receipt of the same. Thus, it is the stand of respondent No. 3 that authorised persons were available to receive the instalments of the loan amount and give valid discharge and that the case stated by the petitioners is false.;