Kerala High Court
M.Ayshumma vs Karuvarakkundu Service ... on 12 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.18469 OF 2015(G)
PETITIONER/S:
M.AYSHUMMA
W/O HAMZ , KALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLAMOOLA,
MAMPATTUMOOLA, MALAPPURAM DISTSTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SMT.M.LISHA
SMT.SMITHA BABU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KARUVARAKKUNDU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD.NO.F 1191, THARISH, KARUVARAKKUNDU, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRTARAY
2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL)
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 127.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.18469 OF 2015(G)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of February 2021
The present writ petition has arisen against the award
rendered in ARC No.2045 of 2010 dated 25.4.2014 of
Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ext.P1 and
dismissal of the appeal vide judgment dated 28.2.2015
rendered in Appeal No.58 of 2004, Ext.P3, whereby the ARC
preferred by the respondent claiming the alleged
misappropriation of the amount against the petitioner was
found legally and factually correct.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Co-
operative Bank failed to prove the charges, though, there
was no case of any misappropriation, Registrar while
allowing the ARC awarded a phenomenal amount of
interest @12%. The appeal has also been dismissed without
noticing the fact that there was no contract with regard to
the payment of interest even the Bank charges qua the
interest are also minimum. In the absence of any fixed
WP(C).No.18469 OF 2015(G)
amount of interest, the interest prescribed under the
provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure
ought to have been granted.
3. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that
concurrent finding of fact and law cannot be upset while
exercising the power under Article 226 of the constitution
of India, as it do not fall within the realm of judicial review
until and unless there is clear illegality or abuse of the
process. The interest awarded is fair and justified and does
not require any reduction.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties,
appraised the paper book and of the view that the charges
have been proved against the petitioner, which have gone
unrebutted. Petitioner has not been able to lead any
evidence against the documents produced on record on
behalf of the Bank. In such circumstances, the alleged
misappropriation of the amount as sought in the ARC has
been proved. Coming to the point of interest, I am in
agreement with the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner as the interest @12% in the present economic
WP(C).No.18469 OF 2015(G)
condition is on a higher side and during these days,
awarding of 12% is almost equivalent to commercial
interest. Accordingly, by upholding the findings qua
misappropriation, I modify the award by reducing the
interest 12% to 6%. The request for payment of the
amount in instalments is rejected.
Writ petition stands partly allowed in the
aforementioned terms.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
sab JUDGE
WP(C).No.18469 OF 2015(G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN
ARC.NO.2045/2010 DATED 25/4/2014 PASSED
BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL) MANJERI
EXHIBIT P2 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL
MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFOER THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AS APPEAL NO 58/2004
EXHIBIT P3 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
28/2/2015 IN APPEAL DATED 28/2/2015 IN
APPEAL NO 58/2004 PASSED BY THE CO-
OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
