Kerala High Court
Chiyyaram Ksheera Vyavasaya ... vs Deputy Director Of Diary Development, ... on 20 June, 2025
2025:KER:44602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 22505 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
CHIYYARAM KSHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHA LIMITED
NO. 71D,
P.O. CHEEYARAM, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS HON.
SECRETARY, SURENDRAN. E, S/O. K.S. MENON, AGED 68
YEARS, EDATHIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P.O, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.THUSHARA D.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, THRISSUR
(ARBITRATOR),
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DAIRY DEVELOPMENT , 3RD
FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, 680
020.
2 THE ARBITRATOR (DAIRY EXTENSION OFFICER),
OFFICE OF DAIRY EXTENSION OFFICER, OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR-
680 655
3 UNNKRISHNAN,
HARISREE HOUSE, THIRUPATT ROAD, OLLUR P.O, THRISSUR
DISTRICT-680 006.
4 KANJANA HARIDAS,
W/O. HARIDAS, MALAYATH HOUSE, CHIYARAM P.O, THRISSUR
DISTRICT-680 026
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
WP(C) No.22505 of 2021 -2-
2025:KER:44602
SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
SHRI.AKSHAY R
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.STEPHY K REGI
SHRI.ADARSH KURIAN
BY GP- NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.22505 of 2021 -3-
2025:KER:44602
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2025
Petitioner has approached this Court to quash Ext.P8.
2. Petitioner is a society registered under the Co-operative
Societies Act, 1969. The Society instituted an arbitration case
against the 3rd respondent herein under Section 69 of the Co-
operative Societies Act read with Rule 67 of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Rules alleging misappropriation of funds while he was the
president of the society and for consequential recovery. The 1 st
respondent was appointed by the 3rd respondent as Arbitrator to
decide the dispute. Later on, it was found that the secretary of the
society was also responsible for the misappropriations. Thereupon
Ext.P4 application was filed seeking to implead the secretary as
additional 4th respondent in the proceedings, and Ext.P5 to amend
Ext.P1 petition. Objections were filed as Exts.P6 and P7. Without
considering any of the contentions in an appropriate manner, by
Ext.P8 order the request of the petitioner has been rejected.
Petitioner would submit that a perusal of Ext.P8 order itself will
reveal that none of the contentions were considered and the request
has been rejected by a cryptic order. Petitioner would submit that
going by Section 98 the Arbitrator has been invested with certain
powers of the Civil Court. Therefore, petitioner submit that the order
2025:KER:44602
of rejection as per Ext.P8 cannot be sustained and sought
reconsideration of the application for impleadment and for
amendment. In support of the contention petitioner relies on the
judgment in Maniyappan T.V. and Another v. Pattanakkad
Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1144 and Others [2020 (4)
KLJ 455]. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment reads as follows:
"17. Thus, though the learned single Judge had directed the 1st
respondent to continue the proceedings with the defendants
already impleaded, we are of the opinion that, in the given
circumstances, and if evidence and materials available on
record suggest that there are other persons also to be
impleaded as additional defendants, it is always open to the
Arbitrator to proceed against them as well, in accordance with
law. We also deem it appropriate to direct the Arbitrator to try
and dispose of the ARC as expeditiously as possible."
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the party respondents
would submit that the evidence is over, and at the fag end these
application has been filed, and the amendment now sought will
change the nature of the suit and also the nature of cause of action
and the same is impermissible. They have filed detailed objection to
the impleadment as well as the petition seeking amendment.
4. The application submitted by the petitioner has been
rejected by Ext.P8. A perusal of Ext.P8 reveal that it is a cryptic
order. None of the contentions on either side has been considered,
and without giving any reason, the applications are rejected.
2025:KER:44602
5. In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the
matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 2 nd respondent.
Accordingly Ext.P8 is set aside with a consequential direction to the
2nd respondent to reconsider Exts.P4 and P5 applications submitted
by the petitioner duly taking into consideration Exts.P6 and P7
objections submitted by the parties and after affording an
opportunity of being heard to both sides, and pass a reasoned order
in place of Ext.P8.
With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sbk/-
2025:KER:44602
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22505/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC 2/2014
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
22.09.2014.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
AUDIT REPORT OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PERIOD
FOR THE PERIOD 2019-2020.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2021
ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION
FILED BY THE SECRETARY IN ARC 2/2014
BEFORE ARBITRATOR DATED 28.7.2021 FOR
IMPLEADING.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION
FILED BY THE SECRTARY IN ARC 2/2014 BEFORE
ARBITRATOR DATED 28.7.2021 FOR AMENDMENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT IN ARC 2/2014 DATED
30.09.2021.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN ARC 2/2014 DATED
30.09.2021.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 30.09.2021.
