Kerala High Court
St. George Orthodox Syrian Church ... vs The Valakom Service Co-Operative ... on 13 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 28589 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH KADAMATTOM
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, JOSEPH, AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O. CHERIYAMATHAI, RESIDING AT NELLIMATTATHIL HOUSE,
KUNNACKAL P.O, VALAKOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682316.
2 FR. SUNNY VARGHESE,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. P.C. VARGHESE, VICAR. ST.GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN
CHURCH, KADAMATTOM, RESIDING AT PUNNACHALIL HOUSE,
4B2, STAR RETREAT LANE NO. 34, JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA,
ERNAKULAM - 682019.
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
P.MARTIN JOSE
R.GITHESH
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
AJAY BEN JOSE
MANJUNATH MENON
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
HARIKRISHNAN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE VALAKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
KUNNACKAL P.O, PIN - 682316, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY,
THE VALAKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KUNNACKAL
P.O, PIN - 682316.
3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF JOINT REGISTRAR'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030.
4 FR. PAULOSE PUTHIYAMADATHIL
PUTHIYAMADATHIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERY P.O, ERNAKULAM -
WP(C) NO. 28589 OF 2021 2
682311.
5 MR.K.V. VARKEY.
KEEZHUPPILLIL HOUSE, KADAMATTOM P.O, AIKKARANAD
NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT - 16.
6 GEORGE K. JOHN
S/O. JOHN KANIKKOTTIL HOUSE, THONNIKKA, KOLENCHERRY
P.O, PIN - 682311.
7 BABU T JACOB,
S/O.JACOB, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, KADAMATTOM P.O,
ERNAKULAM -16.
BY ADVS.
T.R.HARIKUMAR
PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
ARJUN RAGHAVAN
HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP K. AMMINIKUTTY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28589 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
Very interestingly, the petitioners and the party
respondents are ad idem that Exts.P1 to P3 Fixed
Deposits, remaining in the custody of the 1st
respondent - Service Co-operative Bank, must be
renewed without any further delay.
2. Shri.T.R.Harikumar, learned Standing Counsel
for the Bank, submitted that his client has absolutely
no problem in renewing the Fixed Deposits, but that
the application for the same will have to be signed by
the competent Authority of the Church, which
unfortunately is not forthcoming because of the
internecine disputes between its committee members.
3. I notice from the files that Exts.P1 to P3
Fixed Deposits are in the name of the Church.
Obviously, therefore, if the rival factions are not in
a position to sign the renewal applications on account
of their factional fights, it is incumbent upon the
Bank to renew it and await further orders, either from
this Court or from the competent Authorities.
4. Resultantly, I direct the 1st respondent to
renew Exts.P1 to P3 Fixed Deposits in the same name as
they are presently entered, without insisting on
applications to be made by any person and to await
further orders from either this Court or from the
competent Authority in future.
5. I am persuaded to the afore course because,
merely because of the factional disputes between the
members of the Church, the vital assets of the same
cannot be allowed to be frittered away, by not being
renewed, which will entail loss of valuable interest
to the institution.
6. Needless to say, once Exts.P1 to P3 are
renewed, the Bank will abide by any order to be issued
by the competent Court in the manner in which it has
to be either withdrawn or disbursed; but in the
absence of any such being issued to them, the Fixed
Deposits will continue to be renewed periodically in
the same name as they are entered today.
7. As far as the petitioners and the party
respondents are concerned, they will be at full
liberty to approach any competent Court or Forum with
respect to the deposits in question, if they are
interested in making any claim over the proceeds of
the same.
8. At this time, Shri.S.Sreekumar, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners,
submitted that his clients' entitlement as regards the
assets of the Church has already been declared by this
Court in various earlier judgments.
9. Needless to say, if this be so, the
petitioners will be at liberty to present such
judgment before the Bank for the purposes mentioned
above, which shall be considered by it, however, only
after hearing the party respondents.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/13.1
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28589/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSIT RECEIPT DATED
26.2.1998 FOR RS. 24,908/- FOR 91 DAYS.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSIT RECEIPT DATED
26.2.1998 FOR RS. 43,866/- FOR 30 MONTHS.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSIT RECEIPT DATED
26.2.1998 FOR RS. 38, 682/- FOR 91 DAYS.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2020 IN
R.F.A NO. 236 OF 2014 OF THE THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS NO.
23 OF 2013 DATED 31.01.2020 OF FIRST
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF KALPANA NO. 19/20 DATED
30.03.2020.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
03.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
CHURCH THROUGH ITS THEN VICAR BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO EXHIBIT P7 DATED
05.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
30.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE THEN VICAR ON
05.10.2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO EXHIBIT P9 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
15.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE THEN VICAR.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.07.2021 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
