Kerala High Court
The Nallurnad Service ... vs P.R.Lakshmanan on 25 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
WA NO. 1246 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 18148/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 THE NALLURNAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
NO.6913, NALLURNAD P.O., DWARAKA, MANANTHAVADI,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670 645, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NALLURNAD SERVICE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.6913
NALLURNAD P.O., DWARAKA, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 670 645, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT.
BY ADVS.M.SASINDRAN & P.SHAHEED
RESPONDENT/S:
1 P.R.LAKSHMANAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.P.S.RAMAN IYER, SECRETARY (RETD), NALLURNAD
SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.6913, NALURNAD
P.O., WAYANAD, RESIDING AT KRISHNAPURAI HOUSE,
PAYINGATTERY VILLAGE, NALLURNAD P.O., (VIA)
MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.
2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL)
KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD, PIN - 673 121.
ADV. SRI. B.S. SWATHIKUMAR
SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI. B.UNNIKRISHNA
KAIMAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2022,ALONG WITH W.A. NO. 1142 OF 2022, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
W.A. No. 1246 of 2022 & 1142 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
WA NO. 1142 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 163/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
THE NALLURNAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
NO.6913,NALLURNAD P.O., MANANTHAVADI, PIN - 670
645, WAYANAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
BY ADVS. M.SASINDRAN & P.SHAHEED
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL)
WAYANAD, PIN - 670 645, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
2 P.K. LAKSHMANAN,
KRISHNAPURI HOUSE, PAINGATTIRI GRAMAM, NALLURNAD
P.O, MANANTHAVADI, PIN - 670 645, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
ADV. SRI. B.S. SWATHIKUMAR
SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI. B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2022,
ALONG WITH W.A. NO. 1246 OF 2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:3:
W.A. No. 1246 of 2022 & 1142 of 2022
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
............................................................
W.A. No. 1246 of 2022 & 1142 of 2022
..................................................................
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
Mohammed Nias, C.P. J.,
W.A. 1246 of 2022 is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.C. 18148 of
2022, a petition filed by the first respondent herein praying for quashing Ext.
P9 order of the Joint Registrar rescinding resolution No. 61 dated 7-1-2020 of
the Board of Directors of the appellant Society.
2. The first respondent/writ petitioner, was imposed with a punishment
of barring of two increments as per Ext. P3 order and the appeal against the
said order was rejected by the appellate authority confirming the punishment.
The said orders were challenged by the first respondent/writ petitioner by filing
Arbitration Case before the Kerala Co-operative Arbitration Court, in which a
joint statement was filed agreeing to grant all benefits to the first respondent
and recording the said joint statement, Ext. P6 decree was passed. Later, by
Ext. P9, the earlier resolution that was the basis of the compromise decree was
rescinded and it was Ext. P9 that was impugned in W.P.C. No. 18148 of 2022.
3. The Bank filed W.P.C. 163/2022 impugning Ext. P6 order of the
W.A. No. 1246 of 2022 & 1142 of 2022
Arbitration Court which was based on a joint memo by the petitioner as well as
the erstwhile Managing Committee and they alleged that it was a fradulent
act and contrary to the interest of the bank. Both these Writ Petitions were
heard together. It was the specific contention on behalf of the bank that the
order of the Arbitration Court on the basis of the joint memo executed between
the writ petitioner P.R. Lakshmanan and the erstwhile committee of the bank
was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the bank need not seek any other
remedy against the said order of the Arbitration Court. The contention of the
writ petitioner/P.R. Lakshmanan was that once a joint memo has been accepted
and incorporated in the order of the Arbitration Court, the Joint Registrar could
not have rescinded the said resolution which led to the said joint memo being
filed and accepted by the Arbitration Court and that the attempt to challenge
the orders of the Arbitration Court before this Court, is clearly misconceived.
4. The learned Single Judge who considered both the Writ Petitions by a
common judgment held that since the Arbitration Court had recorded the
conditions in the joint memo signed between P.R. Lakshmanan/the writ
petitioner and the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Bank, the decision of
the Arbitration Court has to hold the field unless it is set aside through a
process of law. In that view of the matter, it was found that the challenge to
the order of the Arbitration Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India
had to fail.
5. The attempt on the part of the Joint Registrar in rescinding the
resolution, based on which the joint memo was filed, was not accepted, and
accordingly, W.P.C. 18148 of 2022 was allowed and Ext. P9 was set aside by
granting liberty to the Bank to take any action against the petitioner, only if
W.A. No. 1246 of 2022 & 1142 of 2022
the decree of the Arbitration Court in ARC No. 27 of 2019 is set aside in
terms of law. The writ petition filed by the Bank in W.P.C. 163/2022 was
dismissed granting liberty to invoke their alternate remedy against Ext. P6, the
order of the Arbitration Court, subject to law and limitation. The Bank has filed
the above appeals against the common judgment in the Writ Petitions
mentioned above.
6. We have heard Sri. M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the
appellant, Adv. Sri. B. S.Swathikumar for the party responent and the learned
Government Pleader Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned
Single Judge went wrong in holding that the joint registrar did not have the
power to rescind the resolution taken earlier, as he had ample powers under
Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. He further argues
that the decision to file a joint memo allowing the prayer of P.K.Lakshmanan is
completely wrong. It is alleged that the resolution which formed the basis of
the order of the Arbitration Court is obtained by fraud and therefore, the Writ
Petition filed by the Bank ought to have been allowed and the Writ Petition filed
by the Petitioner P.K.Lakshmanan challenging the action of the joint registrar
rescinding the resolution of the Society ought to have been dismissed.
8. Having heard the learned counsel on eitherside, we are not in a
position to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant for
more reasons than one. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, we are of
the view that the order of the Arbitration court was on the basis of a
W.A. No. 1246 of 2022 & 1142 of 2022
resolution and a joint statement between the writ petitioner and the erstwhile
Managing Committee. If at all the said resolution was bad for any reason, the
remedy of the bank is to take appropriate proceedings against the said order
of the Arbitration court which could not have been done by filing a Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Equally, the Joint Registrar could
not have rescinded the resolution which was acted upon by the Arbitration
Court and so long as the said decision stands, the Joint Registrar could not
have passed a resolution rescinding the earlier one. The learned counsel for
the appellant refers to the observations in paragraph 12 of the judgment,
extracted hereunder.
"That being said, the attempt of the Joint Registrar in
rescinding the resolution based on which the Joint Memo
was filed before the 'Arbitration Court', can never
appeal to me as long as the order of the said Court is in
force. Therefore, whatever be the nature of the order
now issued by the Joint Registrar, as long as the decree
issued by the 'Arbitration Court' has not been set aside,
it will certainly continue to be in effect".
The learned counsel argues that he would be seriously prejudiced even if he
availed the alternate remedy, as the above finding would operate against him.
9. We do not think that the learned Single Judge has by the above
finding held anything against the appellants herein and as we have noted
above, the learned Single Judge has only held that as long as the order of the
W.A. No. 1246 of 2022 & 1142 of 2022
Arbitration Court stood, the Joint Registrar could not have rescinded the
resolution. The basis for the apprehension is misplaced. We do not think that
the learned Single Judge has committed any error in passing the judgment
under appeal.
Writ Appeals fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,
JUDGE
ani
/true copy/
