Biju Mathew vs Manjoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd ...

Kerala High Court

Biju Mathew vs Manjoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd ... on 23 May, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1       BIJU MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW,
            RESIDING AT KARUVELIL HOUSE, IRAVIMANGALAM KARA,
            MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,
            KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686603.

    2       BENNY MATHEW, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW,
            RESIDING AT KARUVELIL HOUSE, IRAVIMANGALAM KARA,
            MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,
            KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686603.

            BY ADVS.
            SANTHOSH G. PRABHU
            A.ASWATHY
            N.U.DEEPA


RESPONDENTS:

    1       MANJOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. K-7
            MANJOOR. P.O, KURUPPANTHARA,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686603.

    2       THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
            (GENERAL), VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686141.

            BY ADVS.
            VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
            AMRITHA.J(K/552/2020)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024
                                     -2-

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioners say that they are now facing Exts.P3 and P4 Awards, issued by the 2 nd respondent in his capacity as the Statutory Arbitrator, on the application of the 1st respondent - Co-operative Society; however, both of which being ex parte. They explain the reason for them not having been able to appear before the 2nd respondent; and assert that they have preferred Exts.P5 and P6 applications to have the afore Awards set aside. The petitioners allege that, however, the afore applications have not been considered by the 2 nd respondent, but that he is continuing with the recovery action based on the Awards, as evident from Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices.

2. The petitioners thus pray that the 2nd respondent be directed to take up Exts.P5 and P6 WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024 -3- applications and dispose of them; and that he be further ordered not to continue with any recovery action based on Exts.P1 and P2, until such time.

3. The afore submissions of Sri.Santhosh G.Prabhu - learned counsel for the petitioners, were, however, controverted by Sri.Varghese C.Kuriakose - learned counsel for respondent No.1, saying that the petitioners' attempt is only to delay the recovery proceedings, particularly when he has already suffered Exts.P3 and P4 Awards. He argued that the reasons stated by them in Exts.P5 and P6 are unbelievable; and that, therefore, they are not deserving of any indulgence from this Court.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.C.S.Sheeja, in response, affirmed that, since Exts.P3 and P4 Awards are ex parte, the 2nd respondent has jurisdiction to consider Exts.P5 WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024 -4- and P6 applications; but prayed that this Court make no affirmative declarations in favour of the petitioners at this stage, since all the issues projected will have to be considered in their proper perspective, based on germane and relevant aspects and documents. She added that the 2nd respondent, or the competent Arbitrator, is willing to consider the applications after hearing both sides without any avoidable delay.

5. When I consider the afore rival positions, it is indubitable that, since the petitioners have already moved Exts.P5 and P6 petitions before the Arbitrator, it is for the said Authority to consider the same and issue appropriate orders thereon, including on the question of its maintainability and such other applicable issues. The Authority cannot refuse to consider the applications because he is enjoined to decide upon every relevant aspect WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024 -5- within the ambit of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the 2nd respondent, or such other Authority, who is the competent Arbitrator, to take up Exts.P5 and P6 applications and dispose of the same, after hearing the petitioners and the 1st respondent; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, until such time as the afore is done and the resultant order communicated to the petitioners, all further action pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 will stand deferred; but can be taken forward, depending upon the decision to be taken by the Arbitrator through the afore exercise.

WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024 -6- I, however, clarify that I have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions, including on the question of maintainability of the above said applications, or on the issues of limitation - if applicable; and that all these are left open to be decided by the Arbitrator appropriately.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024 -7- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15434/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF EA DEMAND NOTICE (408/24) IN ARC NO. 1627/2021 DATED NIL EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF EA DEMAND NOTICE (409/24) IN ARC NO. 1628/2021 DATED NIL EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 21.2.2022 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN ARC NO. 1627/2021 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 21.2.2022 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN ARC NO. 1628/2021 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY PETITION DTD 1.4.24 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN ARC NO.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DTD 1.4.24 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN ARC NO.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 01/04/2024 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 01/04/2024