Kerala High Court
M. Abdul Jaleel vs The Assistant ... on 23 February, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 21518 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
M. ABDUL JALEEL
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MADATHIL BEERAVUNNI,
VELLAYOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679 327.
BY ADV P.M.POULOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/ARBITRATOR/SALE OFFICER
NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 329.
2 THE SECRETARY IN CHARGE
KALIKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679 322.
BY ADVS.
A.S.DILEEP
P.BINOD(K/647/1987)
K.Y.SUDHEENDRAN(K/000625/1987)
SUSEELA DILEEP(S-1307)
SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER(K/000517/2018)
P . M SHAMEER (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.21518/2023
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the 1 st
respondent in ARC No.2248 of 2022 on the files of the 1 st
respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court
being aggrieved by the fact that steps are being taken to
recover the amounts due under Ext.P1 award in ARC
No.2248 of 2022, despite the fact that the petitioner and
other legal heirs have preferred Ext.P2 application for
setting aside the ex parte award.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd
respondent would submit that this is a case where the
petitioner had purposefully remained absent after entering
appearance before the Arbitrator. It is submitted that in
such circumstances, it cannot be said that the award was
ex parte and therefore Ext.P2 application may not be
maintainable. It is submitted that consideration of any
further application at the hands of the Arbitrator would
amount to review, as the petitioner had entered appearance
before the Arbitrator and failed to raise any contention
before the Arbitrator.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, I
am of the view that in the light of the law laid down by this
Court in Rema Devi v. Joint Registrar (General) of Co-
operative Societies; 2016 (3) KLT 50, Ext.P2 application
can be entertained by the Arbitrator. The contention of the
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that Ext.P1 is not an
ex parte award cannot be accepted, as Ext.P1 award does
not state that the petitioner or other legal heirs had entered
appearance and had thereafter failed to participate in the
proceedings.
4. Therefore, this writ petition will stand disposed of
directing the 1st respondent (Arbitrator) to consider and
pass orders on Ext.P2 with notice to the petitioner and to
the 2nd respondent and after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and to the 2 nd respondent. While
considering Ext.P2, it will also be open to the 1 st respondent
to consider as to whether the petitioner or other legal heirs
had actually entered appearance before the 1 st respondent
and had thereafter failed to contest the matter. Till such
time as orders are passed on Ext.P2, the recovery
proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ats
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21518/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 22-7-2022
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ARC
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
31-12-2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE
MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE
KALIKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED, 6-3-2013
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.1.2024
ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
