HP Co-Operative Societies Act | No One Can Be Condemned Unheard, Even If Act Does Not Have Provisions For Filing Objections: High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that even if the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, does not have specific provisions for filing objections in execution proceedings, the principles of natural justice must apply and the judgement debtor must be given an opportunity to be heard.

Setting aside the order of Collector-cum-Deputy Registrar, Mandi Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “the findings returned by the Authority that as the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act and Rules do not provide for filing of any objections in the course of deciding the execution proceedings, no objections can be entertained, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The mechanism of natural justice is inbuilt and inherent and no one can be condemned unheard.”

The petitioner contended that execution proceedings were initiated against her by the mandi urban co-operative bank limited. However, the objections filed by her against the execution proceedings were rejected on the ground that under the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative societies act, there is no provision to raise objection during execution.

The High Court observed that the order rejecting the objections was not sustainable in the eyes of law. It noted that as per sections 87 and 89 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1978 deal with execution of awards in accordance with law and as per the rules.

However, the Court remarked that the execution filed by the award holder cannot be decided “in a mundane manner” without hearing the other party. The Court stated that “no one can be condemned unheard,” and that the right to execute an award inherently carries with it the obligation to provide an opportunity to the judgment debtor to oppose execution if permitted by law.

Thus, the Court allowed the petition and held that the authority's finding that no objections could be entertained due to absence of specific provisions in the act was unsustainable.

Case Name: Smt. Nalini Vidya v/s The Mandi Urban Co-operative Bank Limited

Case No.: CMPMO No. 464 of 2020

Date of Decision: 11.08.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Sood, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Radhey Shyam Gautam, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order