Kerala High Court
K.Arumughan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 28955 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
K.ARUMUGHAN
AGED 63 YEARS
PARAKKODE HOUSE, KALLEKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 015
BY ADV P.N.MOHANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD - 678 001
2 PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, P.B.NO.21, H.P.O.ROAD,
SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD - 678 001
3 THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
EMPLOYEES CREDIT SOCIETY LTD NO.P-530, REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY, PALAKKAD - 678 014
4 A.JOHN BENEDICT
PAZHANIYAR PALAYAM, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD - 678 555
5 V.SARADA
SHROFF, PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, P.B.NO.21,
H.P.O.ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD - 678 001
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT RESMI THOMAS - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28955 OF 2019
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner asserts that 2nd respondent - Society has
recovered large amounts from his retiral benefits, including gratuity,
without any authority. He explains that, when he retired from the
services of the Society, the entire retiral benefits, including eligible
gratuity, had been transferred to his account, but nearly Rs.8 lakhs
was then unilaterally recovered from it, on the allegation that same
was a liability determined against him. The petitioner vehemently
contends that no liability has ever been fixed against him, nor have
any steps been taken by the Bank to quantify such amounts through a
process of law and therefore, that they are now liable to be directed to
return the said sums to him without any further delay.
2. The afore submissions of Sri.C.P.Sabari - learned counsel
for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.M.Sasindran - learned
Standing Counsel for the Society, saying that recovery was made on
the basis of a valid order from the statutory Arbitrator. He explained
that his client had approached the Arbitrator for such purpose and
that an Award was issued, thus authorizing them to recover amounts
from the petitioner's account, which may or may not have contained
his retiral benefits. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed.
WP(C) NO. 28955 OF 2019
3. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is without doubt
that law has been well settled by this Court to the effect that no Bank
can unilaterally quantify an amount and then seek to recover it
without the junction of the competent Forum, namely the Arbitrator
under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (KCS
Act) and the Rules thereunder.
4. That said, the specific contention of the Bank is that they
have already obtained an Award from the competent Arbitrator, but
pertinently, same has not been placed on record yet.
5. Therefore, it will be justified for this Court to declare that
unless the Bank has made the recovery based on an Arbitration
Award, same was impermissible.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the competent
Authority of the Bank to hear the petitioner and serve him a copy of
the Award allegedly obtained by them from the Arbitrator.
If the recovery has been made based on the Arbitration Award,
then I leave liberty to the petitioner to challenge it appropriately;
however, if, on the other hand, no such Award has been obtained by
the Society, they will release the afore amount to the petitioner within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
If, no Award has been obtained by the Society yet, I also leave
WP(C) NO. 28955 OF 2019
them liberty to approach the competent Forum for such purpose,
subject to the rigour and prescriptions of Limitation and other
imperative provisions of law; but if they are still unable to obtain any
interdictory orders within the afore time frame, payment shall be
made, subject to such proceedings.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 28955 OF 2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28955/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.11.2014
OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10.09.2018 OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2019 IN
W.P.(C).NO.32726/2018
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2019 OF FIRST
RESPONDENT WITH POSTAL COVER
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.10.2014.
EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P&G/2014-2015 DATED
14.11.2014.
EXHIBIT R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE FOLIO VOUCHER DATED 29.11.2014.
EXHIBIT R2(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P&G/2014-14 DATED
29.11.2014.
EXHIBIT R2(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&G/19-20 DATED
6.9.2019.
