Kerala High Court
The Poovathumkadavu Farmers ... vs The Sale Officer (Arbitrator) on 29 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 24997 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OTHERS 28/2009 OF KERALA CO-OP.TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
THE POOVATHUMKADAVU FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LTD. NO.4686,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
(ASSISTANT REGISTRAR), PANANGAD P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 665.
BY ADV.
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SALE OFFICER (ARBITRATOR),
POOVATHUMKADAVU FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4686,
PANANGAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 665.
2 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 E.S.SHAIJU,
S/O. ERASSERY SADANANTHAN,
ERASSERY HOUSE, NELPINI DESOM,
SREENARAYANAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-681 664.
4 BOBBY,
W/O. E.S.SHAIJU, ERASSERY HOUSE,
NELPINI DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-681 664.
BY ADV SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.RESHMITHA.R.CHANDRAN - GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C)No.24997 of 2012
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
There is no representation for any of the respondents .
2. The 3rd respondent herein, was appointed as a
pharmacist in the Neethi Medical Store conducted by the
petitioner/Society. At the time of his appointment, he
executed an indemnity bond, undertaking to make good the
loss, if any, sustained by the Society on account of the
3rd respondent's fault. It is alleged that due to the
gross latches on the part of the 3rd respondent,
medicines were retained in the medical store even after
the date of expiry. That apart, the medicines which
were returned before the expiry date were not got
replaced by fresh stock. This anomaly was detected in
the departmental audit conducted for the year 2006 -
2007. Deficit in stock of the medicines worth
Rs.2,10,787/- was revealed. Medicines worth Rs.62,148/-
were found short in the stock of the Neethi Medical
W.P(C)No.24997 of 2012
Store. Value of the expired medicines was calculated at
Rs.1,15,103/- and the value of the medicines admitted to
be returned, but was not replaced with fresh stock, was
calculated at Rs.1,42,817/-.
3. Although, the 3rd respondent was put on notice,
after quantifying the liability, he was not prepared to
make good the loss in terms of the indemnity bond
executed by him, except a sum of Rs.1,03,600/-. The
Society instituted an arbitration case, which culminated
in an award for recovery of sum of Rs.4,44,131/-,
together with interest from the 3rd respondent, as also,
the properties of respondents 3 and 4, 4 th respondent
being his wife. An appeal was preferred against the
award before the co-operative Tribunal, which is seen
marked as Ext.P9 in this writ petition. The award was
confirmed, except in respect of the value of the
medicines returned, but not replaced by fresh stock or
refunded, which is quantified at Rs.1,42,817/-.
Aggrieved by the refusal of the amount on that account,
the petitioner/Society preferred the above writ
petition.
W.P(C)No.24997 of 2012
4. Challenging the award, which confirmed
liability of the 3rd respondent on the two other counts,
the 3rd respondent herein, filed a writ petition, bearing
No.541/2012. As per judgment dated 26.02.2021, the said
writ petition stands closed, due the default on the part
of the petitioners to pursue it.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and having perused the order of the
Tribunal, this Court finds no reason to interfere with
the findings of the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal took
stock of the fact that the petitioner/Society has no
case that the 3rd respondent herein has misappropriated
the amount, if any, refunded on account of the medicines
returned. The Tribunal also found that the
petitioner/Society can realise the amount due to it on
account of medicines returned from the respective
manufacturer/supplier. In such circumstances, the
learned Tribunal held that the 3rd respondent cannot be
mulcted with the liability on that account, more so,
when the 3rd respondent had left the service of the
petitioner/Society.
W.P(C)No.24997 of 2012
This Court in exercise of its powers of
judicial review finds no reason to interfere with the
above findings of the learned Tribunal, which is
supported by adequate reasons.
In the result, this writ petition will stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
NR/29/10/2021
W.P(C)No.24997 of 2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE INDEMNITY BOND EXECUTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH HIS FATHER DATED 18-8-2004
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AUDIT
CERTIFICATE FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE INDEMNITY BOND EXECUTED BY
RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 DATED 14-5-2007
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06-08-2007 ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 DATED 25-09-2007
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC 333 OF 2008 DATED
8-2-2008
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN ARC 333 OF 2008 15-4-2008
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE AWARD IN ARC 333 OF 2008 DATED
16-05-2009
Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN APPEAL PETITION NO.28 OF
2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31-08-2011.
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
