The Board Of Directors Of The ... vs C.Premakumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 19410 Ker

R.P.No.588/21 in W.P(C).8156/2021
                                       1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
  THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 25TH BHADRA, 1943
                              RP NO. 588 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8156/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                               KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

              THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ANTHIYOOR SERVICE CO-
              OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1166
              ANTHIYOOR, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., 695 501,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT.

              BY ADV M.SASINDRAN



RESPONDENT/S:

      1       C.PREMAKUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS
              SECRETARY, THE ANTHIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
              LTD. NO.1166, ANTHIYOOR, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., -695
              501, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

      2       THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
              (GENERAL)
              JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, D.P.I. JUNCTION, JAGATHY,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014

      3       THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
              (GENERAL)
              NEYYATTINKARA-695 305, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

              BY ADV P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN



OTHER PRESENT:

              GP PARVATHY KOTTOL




       THIS   REVIEW     PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
16.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P.No.588/21 in W.P(C).8156/2021
                                      2




                                    ORDER

The review is sought on the limited ground that, while

pronouncing the judgment dated 23.06.2021, this Court did not

reserve the right of the review petitioner/society, who is the 3 rd

respondent in the writ petition, to be heard.

2. Accordingly, I am inclined to allow the review petition by

additionally directing that, while considering Ext.P7 representation,

respondents shall also be given an opportunity of being heard. In the

light of this order, time limit prescribed in the above judgment stands

extended by two months from today.

Review petition is allowed. Separate order is passed on the

review petition, which will form part of the judgment.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE Sbna/ R.P.No.588/21 in W.P(C).8156/2021

APPENDIX OF RP 588/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure AI TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT PREFERRED BY THE BANK BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT IN ARC 148/2009