Simi Gopinath vs The Managing Committee Of The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 917 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.25687 OF 2020(I)


PETITIONER:

               SIMI GOPINATH, AGED 38 YEARS
               PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, THALAKODE P.O,
               THUPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM - 682314.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
               SRI.C.P.SABARI
               SMT.AMRUTHA SURESH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE KANJIRAM SERVICE
               CO-OPERATIVE BANK . LTD. NO. K. 433
               REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KANJIRAM,
               KOTTAYAM - 686030.

      2        THE KANJIRAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK . LTD. NO. K.
               433
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
               KANJIRAM, KOTTAYAM - 686030.

      3        THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT(SOUTHERN)
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
               KAITHAMUKKU PETTA ROAD, NALUMUKKU,
               PAZHAVANGADI,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695024.

               R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE
               R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDARSANAN

OTHER PRESENT:

               SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).25687/2020
                                      2




                                JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner herein is that, Ext.P1 ARC

No.44/15 was filed in the year August 2015. The entire proceedings

could not be brought to its logical conclusion inspite of considerable

delay. Hence, he seeks a direction to the authority/Co-operative

Arbitration Court (Southern) for a time bound disposal of the above

ARC.

2. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the first

respondent/society submitted that, he can also cooperate with the trial

and the Enquiry Officer was made available on the last posting date and

the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that the matter is

pending before this Court. This was countered by the learned counsel

for the petitioner contending that, for the last 5 years, Enquiry Officer

was not offered for examination.

3. Without going into the above controversy, I feel that, interest

of justice will be served if a time bound disposal is ordered. This was

agreed by both sides also. Hence, I am inclined to dispose of the writ

petition with a direction that ARC.No.44 of 2015 shall be taken up and

disposed of by the Co-operative Arbitrator, after giving a reasonable

opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, as expeditiously as W.P(C).25687/2020

possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

                                                SUNIL THOMAS

Sbna                                               JUDGE
 W.P(C).25687/2020





                         APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:



EXHIBIT P1           A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC NO.44/2015