Biju Mathew vs Manjoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 13051 Ker

Kerala High Court

Biju Mathew vs Manjoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd ... on 23 May, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1       BIJU MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW,
            RESIDING AT KARUVELIL HOUSE, IRAVIMANGALAM KARA,
            MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,
            KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686603.

    2       BENNY MATHEW, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW,
            RESIDING AT KARUVELIL HOUSE, IRAVIMANGALAM KARA,
            MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,
            KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686603.

            BY ADVS.
            SANTHOSH G. PRABHU
            A.ASWATHY
            N.U.DEEPA


RESPONDENTS:

    1       MANJOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. K-7
            MANJOOR. P.O, KURUPPANTHARA,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686603.

    2       THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
            (GENERAL), VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686141.

            BY ADVS.
            VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
            AMRITHA.J(K/552/2020)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024
                                     -2-

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioners say that they are now facing

Exts.P3 and P4 Awards, issued by the 2 nd

respondent in his capacity as the Statutory

Arbitrator, on the application of the 1st

respondent - Co-operative Society; however, both

of which being ex parte. They explain the reason

for them not having been able to appear before

the 2nd respondent; and assert that they have

preferred Exts.P5 and P6 applications to have

the afore Awards set aside. The petitioners

allege that, however, the afore applications

have not been considered by the 2 nd respondent,

but that he is continuing with the recovery

action based on the Awards, as evident from

Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices.

2. The petitioners thus pray that the 2nd

respondent be directed to take up Exts.P5 and P6 WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024

applications and dispose of them; and that he be

further ordered not to continue with any

recovery action based on Exts.P1 and P2, until

such time.

3. The afore submissions of Sri.Santhosh

G.Prabhu - learned counsel for the petitioners,

were, however, controverted by Sri.Varghese

C.Kuriakose - learned counsel for respondent

No.1, saying that the petitioners' attempt is

only to delay the recovery proceedings,

particularly when he has already suffered

Exts.P3 and P4 Awards. He argued that the

reasons stated by them in Exts.P5 and P6 are

unbelievable; and that, therefore, they are not

deserving of any indulgence from this Court.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader -

Smt.C.S.Sheeja, in response, affirmed that,

since Exts.P3 and P4 Awards are ex parte, the 2nd

respondent has jurisdiction to consider Exts.P5 WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024

and P6 applications; but prayed that this Court

make no affirmative declarations in favour of

the petitioners at this stage, since all the

issues projected will have to be considered in

their proper perspective, based on germane and

relevant aspects and documents. She added that

the 2nd respondent, or the competent Arbitrator,

is willing to consider the applications after

hearing both sides without any avoidable delay.

5. When I consider the afore rival

positions, it is indubitable that, since the

petitioners have already moved Exts.P5 and P6

petitions before the Arbitrator, it is for the

said Authority to consider the same and issue

appropriate orders thereon, including on the

question of its maintainability and such other

applicable issues. The Authority cannot refuse

to consider the applications because he is

enjoined to decide upon every relevant aspect WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024

within the ambit of the Kerala Co-operative

Societies Act and Rules.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this

Writ Petition and direct the 2nd respondent, or

such other Authority, who is the competent

Arbitrator, to take up Exts.P5 and P6

applications and dispose of the same, after

hearing the petitioners and the 1st respondent;

thus culminating in an appropriate order and

necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is

possible, but not later than two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, until such time as the

afore is done and the resultant order

communicated to the petitioners, all further

action pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 will stand

deferred; but can be taken forward, depending

upon the decision to be taken by the Arbitrator

through the afore exercise.

WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024

I, however, clarify that I have not entered

into the merits of any of the rival contentions,

including on the question of maintainability of

the above said applications, or on the issues of

limitation - if applicable; and that all these

are left open to be decided by the Arbitrator

appropriately.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15434/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF EA DEMAND NOTICE (408/24) IN ARC NO. 1627/2021 DATED NIL

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF EA DEMAND NOTICE (409/24) IN ARC NO. 1628/2021 DATED NIL

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 21.2.2022 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN ARC NO.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 21.2.2022 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN ARC NO.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY PETITION DTD 1.4.24 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN ARC NO.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DTD 1.4.24 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN ARC NO.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 01/04/2024

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 01/04/2024