The Anthiyoor Service ... vs C.Premkumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 19302 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/23RD BHADRA, 1943
                W.P.(C)NO.14667 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

       THE ANTHIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
       BANK LTD.NO.1166, ANTHIYOOR,
       BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
       BY ADVS.
       SRI.M.SASINDRAN
       SRI.P.SHAHEED


RESPONDENTS:

  1    C.PREMKUMAR, SECRETARY,
       THE ANTHIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
       LTD.NO.1166, ANTHIYOOR, BALARAMAPURAM P.O.,
       THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
  2    THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
       SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
       THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
  3    THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT,
       THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KAITHAMUKKU PETTA ROAD,
       NALUMUKKU, PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
       KERALA-695 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
       BY ADVS.
       SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
       SRI.M.B.SOORI
       SMT.AISWARYA V.S.


       SRI JIMMY GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER



       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
  ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
  DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
       W.P.(C) NO.14667 OF 2021

                                      2


                                 JUDGMENT

It is a classic case of misuse of the

judicial process at the instance of the

petitioner challenging Ext.P3 order dated

14.2.2017 whereby, on the basis of a compromise

entered into as per the resolution of the

society dated 11.7.2016 Ext.P5, the Arbitration

Court disposed of ARC No.148 of 2009. The

aforementioned order was not challenged before

the Arbitration Tribunal but sought to be

reviewed as has been done only in the month of

March, 2021 by Ext.P8 inter alia on the

following grounds.

"In the meanwhile, a draft proposal for settlement was prepared by the plaintiff himself and the same was placed before the Board for approval. It is submitted that, the approval for the purported settlement deed has not been accorded by the Board of Directors of the defendant bank. As such, the purported settlement filed in the above numbered arbitration plaint is legally unsustainable on the following grounds. i. The terms of the purported settlement was not approved by the Board of Directors of the defendant bank.

ii. The signature was affixed by the President only for the limited purpose of placing the same W.P.(C) NO.14667 OF 2021

before the Board of Directors.

iii. Though the Board of Directors discussed the alleged settlement on 18.7.2016, no decision has been taken by the Board to file the same before this Hon'ble Court.

iv. The settlement deed lacks signature of the Counsel of the defendant. As such, it cannot be deemed as a proper compromise petition duly entered into parties and filed before this Hon'ble Court.

v. It is pertinent to note that, the alleged compromise contains more benefits and reliefs in favour of the plaintiff, which are not even sought for in the plaint itself.

vi. The plaintiff being the Secretary had made the bank believe that the Arbitration Suit filed by him has been closed without casting any liability upon the bank. Believing the same the defendants have not even cared to consult its counsel, who was representing the bank during that point of time.

For the reasons mentioned above, the alleged compromise filed before this Hon'ble Court is per se illegal and unsustanable."

None of the ingredients of alleged fraud,

which vitiates everything much less limitation

had been traced out. It is a matter of record

that the Arbitration Award was passed in the

presence of the party and the counsel. No

explanation has come forth as to how and in

what manner for the period of four years

petitioner slept over the matter and woke up

only in March 2021. If at all there was some W.P.(C) NO.14667 OF 2021

fraud, it should have been expediently invoked

within a reasonable period of 30 days from the

date of the knowledge. Even the review

application is expressly barred by law of

Limitation, though the limitation could not come

in case it is perpetuated out of fraud but for

the sake of repetition none of such ingredients

are specifically made out from the contentions.

Thus the prayer as sought for in the present

writ petition for issuance of directions to the

Arbitration Court for deciding Ext.P8 and until

then stay of the operation of the award, is only

devoid of merit.

writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE ss W.P.(C) NO.14667 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14667/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN A.R.C.NO.148 OF 2009 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT DATED 22.10.2009.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE SOCIETY IN A.R.C NO.148 OF 2009 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 15.07.2010.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2017 IN ARC 148 OF 2009 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGED COMPROMISE PETITION, PRODUCED BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT, DATED 18.07.2016.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.VIII PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 11.07.2016.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT JOINT REGISTRAR, DATED 08.03.2021.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.06.2021 IN W.P(C)NO.8156 OF 2021. Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF THE A.R.C., NUMBERED AS I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN A.R.C 148 OF 2009, OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.