K.Arumughan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ...

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8511 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 July, 2022

Kerala High Court
K.Arumughan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 6 July, 2022
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

          WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944

                             WP(C) NO. 28955 OF 2019

PETITIONER:

               K.ARUMUGHAN
               AGED 63 YEARS
               PARAKKODE HOUSE, KALLEKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 015

               BY ADV P.N.MOHANAN



RESPONDENTS:

     1         JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
               (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
               SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD - 678 001

     2         PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
               REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, P.B.NO.21, H.P.O.ROAD,
               SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD - 678 001

     3         THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
               EMPLOYEES CREDIT SOCIETY LTD NO.P-530, REPRESENTED BY
               SECRETARY, PALAKKAD - 678 014

     4         A.JOHN BENEDICT
               PAZHANIYAR PALAYAM, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD - 678 555

     5         V.SARADA
               SHROFF, PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, P.B.NO.21,
               H.P.O.ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD - 678 001

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
               SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC




OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT RESMI THOMAS - GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 28955 OF 2019

                                     2




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner asserts that 2nd respondent - Society has recovered large amounts from his retiral benefits, including gratuity, without any authority. He explains that, when he retired from the services of the Society, the entire retiral benefits, including eligible gratuity, had been transferred to his account, but nearly Rs.8 lakhs was then unilaterally recovered from it, on the allegation that same was a liability determined against him. The petitioner vehemently contends that no liability has ever been fixed against him, nor have any steps been taken by the Bank to quantify such amounts through a process of law and therefore, that they are now liable to be directed to return the said sums to him without any further delay.

2. The afore submissions of Sri.C.P.Sabari - learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.M.Sasindran - learned Standing Counsel for the Society, saying that recovery was made on the basis of a valid order from the statutory Arbitrator. He explained that his client had approached the Arbitrator for such purpose and that an Award was issued, thus authorizing them to recover amounts from the petitioner's account, which may or may not have contained his retiral benefits. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

WP(C) NO. 28955 OF 2019 3

3. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is without doubt that law has been well settled by this Court to the effect that no Bank can unilaterally quantify an amount and then seek to recover it without the junction of the competent Forum, namely the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (KCS Act) and the Rules thereunder.

4. That said, the specific contention of the Bank is that they have already obtained an Award from the competent Arbitrator, but pertinently, same has not been placed on record yet.

5. Therefore, it will be justified for this Court to declare that unless the Bank has made the recovery based on an Arbitration Award, same was impermissible.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the competent Authority of the Bank to hear the petitioner and serve him a copy of the Award allegedly obtained by them from the Arbitrator.

If the recovery has been made based on the Arbitration Award, then I leave liberty to the petitioner to challenge it appropriately; however, if, on the other hand, no such Award has been obtained by the Society, they will release the afore amount to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

If, no Award has been obtained by the Society yet, I also leave WP(C) NO. 28955 OF 2019 4 them liberty to approach the competent Forum for such purpose, subject to the rigour and prescriptions of Limitation and other imperative provisions of law; but if they are still unable to obtain any interdictory orders within the afore time frame, payment shall be made, subject to such proceedings.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 28955 OF 2019 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28955/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.11.2014 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10.09.2018 OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2019 IN W.P.(C).NO.32726/2018 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2019 OF FIRST RESPONDENT WITH POSTAL COVER RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.10.2014. EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P&G/2014-2015 DATED 14.11.2014.

EXHIBIT R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED NIL. EXHIBIT R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE FOLIO VOUCHER DATED 29.11.2014. EXHIBIT R2(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P&G/2014-14 DATED 29.11.2014.

EXHIBIT R2(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&G/19-20 DATED 6.9.2019.