Kerala High Court
Nallurnad Service Co-Operative Bank ... vs P R Lakshmanan on 12 March, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
2025:KER:21097
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 34595 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 NALLURNAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 6913
NALLURNAD POST, MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 670 645.
2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
NALLURNAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. 6913 NALLURNAD
POST, MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, PIN - 670 645.
BY ADVS.
R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
HARISANKAR.K.V.
ATHIRA A.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 P R LAKSHMANAN
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. P S RAMAN, KRISHNAPURI HOUSE PAINGADATTARI GRAMAM,
NALLURNAD POST NALLURNAD AMSOM, PAINGATTARI DESOM
MANATHAVADI, WAYANAD, PIN - 670 645.
2 ADDL.R2. MANU G.KUZHIVELIL,
AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE KUZHIVELIL, RESIDING AT
KUZHIVELIL HOUSE, PO. NALLURNAD POST, MANATHAVADY,
WAYANAD 670 645
[IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/10/2024 IN I.A.1/2024 IN
WP(C)34595/2024].
WP(C) NO.34595 OF 2024 : 2 :
2025:KER:21097
BY ADVS.
NISHA GEORGE
K.B.GANGESH
A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN(K/777/2015)
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)(K/000570/1979)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.34595 OF 2024 : 3 :
2025:KER:21097
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner is a Co-operative Society and
the 2nd petitioner is its Managing Committee. This writ
petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the Co-
operative Arbitration Court and Ext.P12 order of the
Co-operative Tribunal.
2. The 1st respondent is the former Secretary of
the 1st petitioner Society. He was suspended from
service on 04.06.2014 alleging charges of misconduct
and contemplating an enquiry. The enquiry was
conducted by an outside Enquiry Officer in terms of the
provisions contained in Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules').
Ext.P1 is the enquiry report. Five charges were framed
2025:KER:21097
against the 1st respondent and except one, all other
charges were proved. Pursuant thereto, the 1st
respondent was reinstated in service and was imposed
with a punishment of barring of two increments with
cumulative effect as per Ext.P2 proceedings of the
disciplinary committee. Against Ext.P2, the 1st
respondent preferred an appeal before the 2nd petitioner
Managing Committee in terms of Rule 198(4) of the
Rules which was rejected as per Ext.P3. Challenging
Ext.P3, the 1st respondent filed Ext.P4 arbitration case
before the Arbitration Court (Northern), Kozhikode
invoking Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies
Act, 1969 (for short, 'the Act').
3. While the arbitration case was pending, the
2025:KER:21097
Managing Committee passed Ext.P5 resolution resolving
to file a joint statement of the Managing Committee
and the 1st respondent before the Arbitration Court.
Pursuant thereto, a joint statement dated 17.01.2020
was filed before the Arbitration Court. The relevant
portion thereof reads as follows:-
" The above case stands settled between the
petitioner and the respondent out of court by
the intervention of the mediators. So the
petitioner is not intending to proceed with the
above case because of the terms of the joint
statement. The terms of joint statement are:
1) The respondents are ready to release
all the salary benefits and emoluments
and attendant benefits to the petitioner
as per prayer (d) of the case.
2) For the full and final settlement in
additional to the above benefits the
2025:KER:21097
respondents are ready to release the
two increments that are withheld by the
respondents with cumulative effect from
02/04/2015 to the petitioner as per
prayer (b) of the case.
3) The petitioner is relinquishing the
prayers as per (a) (c) and (e) of the
case.
Hence this Honourable Court may be
pleased to pass and award in
accordance with the joint statement."
On the basis of the joint statement, the Arbitration
Court decreed the arbitration case as per Ext.P6 order.
The relevant portion thereof reads as follows:-
"2. Today, when the matter was come up
for hearing, both parties reported that the
matter has been discussed and settled
between the parties in terms of the
conditions enumerated in the Joint
2025:KER:21097
Statement. I have gone through the
conditions enumerated in the Joint
Statement. I have gone through the
conditions enumerated in the statement,
which are found to be lawful. So, a
decree is to be passed in accordance with
the terms and conditions agreed to by the
parties. So, the Joint Statement is
accepted. As per the Joint Statement (1)
The Defendants are ready to release all
the salary benefits and emolument and
attendant benefits to the Plaintiff as the
prayer in clause (d) of the Plaint, (2) For
the full and final settlement in additional
to the above benefits the Defendants are
ready to release the two increments that
are withheld by the Defendants with
cumulative effect from 02-04-2015 to the
Plaintiff as per prayer (b) of the case. (3)
The Plaintiff is relinquishing the prayer as
per clause (a), (c) and (e) of the case.
The Joint Statement shall form part of the
2025:KER:21097
order. There is no order as to cost.
In the result, the Suit is decreed as
stated in the Joint Statement. There is
no order as to cost."
4. Contending that Ext.P5 resolution is vitiated
by fraud, a member of the Society filed an application
before the Joint Registrar under Rule 176 of the Rules
to rescind the resolution. The Joint Registrar, by Ext.P7
order rescinded Ext.P5 resolution.
5. Challenging Ext.P7 order of the Joint Registrar
rescinding Ext.P5, the 1st respondent filed W.P.(C)
No.18148 of 2022 before this Court. The 1st petitioner
Society filed W.P.(C) No.163 of 2022 challenging Ext.P6
order of the Co-operative Arbitration Court contending
that Ext.P6 order was obtained by playing fraud and
misrepresentation.
2025:KER:21097
6. This Court, by Ext.P8 common judgment in
W.P.(C) Nos.163 and 18148 of 2022 disposed of both
the writ petitions in the following manner:-
"(a) W.P.(C) No.18148/2022 is allowed
and Ext.P9 is set aside; however, leaving
liberty to the competent Authority to take
any action against the petitioner, but only
after the decree of the 'Arbitration Court'
in ARC No.27/2019 is set aside in terms
of law, if it so happens in future.
(b) W.P.(C) No.163/2022 is dismissed,
with liberty being reserved to the Bank to
invoke their alternative remedies against
Ext.P6, subject to law and limitations."
7. Against Ext.P8 judgment in W.P(C) No.163 of
2022, the 1st petitioner Society preferred a Writ Appeal.
However, the same was dismissed by Ext.P9 judgment.
8. The petitioners thereafter, filed a Review
2025:KER:21097
Petition before the Co-operative Arbitration Court along
with an application to condone delay. The
Unnumbered Review Petition was rejected by the
Arbitration Court by order dated 31.01.2023, on the
ground that the delay of 75 days could not be
condoned as the Limitation Act does not apply to the
Arbitration Court. Consequently, the Review Petition
was rejected as time barred as per Ext.P10.
9. Against Exts.P6 and P10, the petitioners preferred
Ext.P11 appeal under Section 82 of the Act before the
Kerala State Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by
Ext.P12 order, dismissed the appeal as time barred. The
Tribunal found that the Limitation Act is not applicable
to the Tribunal and the delay cannot be condoned.
2025:KER:21097
The relevant portion of Ext.P12 order reads as follows:-
"5. The limitation period for filing
appeal under Sec.82 of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act is 60 days from
the date of the award. The imputed
award was passed on the joint statement
filed by the appellants herein and the
respondent. The statement signed by the
parties was made part of the award.
Therefore it is further clear that the
parties were award of the award on
20.01.2020 itself. Admittedly the
appellants have filed a review petition
before the Co-operative Court in
November, 2022. and thereafter they
moved the Hon'ble High Court. So it is
further clear that the appellants were
aware of the impugned award long before
the present appeal filed in July, 2023. So
the present appeal is hopelessly barred by
the law of limitation under Sec.82 of the
2025:KER:21097
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act in
Kavirajan v. Co-operative Tribunal 1989
(2) KLT 895, the Hon'ble High court of
Kerala has held that the Co-operative
Tribunal is not a Court and therefore the
Limitation Act is not applicable. The
judgment copy in the Writ appeal was
delivered to the appellants on 31.08.2020
as seen from the records. Even if that
date is taken as the starting point of
limitation, still, the appeal was filed out
of time. Therefore the appeal is liable to
be dismissed on that ground itself.
6. Though misrepresentation was
alleged in the appeal which led the
appellants to enter into the compromise,
no satisfactory evidence was adduced by
the appellants before the Co-operative
Arbitration Court in the Review Petition.
Before this Tribunal also the details of the
alleged misrepresentation was not
2025:KER:21097
explained. The learned counsel for the
respondent argued that they came with an
appeal and challenged the award before
the Hon'ble High Court when the
respondent sough execution of the award.
Apart from the law of limitation, there is
no reason to interfere with the impugned
award passed by the Co-operative
Arbitration Court."
10. It is contended by the petitioners that both
the Co-operative Arbitration Court as well as the Co-
operative Tribunal dismissed the Review Petition and
the Appeal, respectively, without considering the plea
regarding fraud and misrepresentation committed by the
1st respondent. It is asserted that such fraud and
misrepresentation have vitiated Ext.P6 order. Since
these aspects were not considered by the Arbitration
2025:KER:21097
Court or the Tribunal, and the Review Petition and the
Appeal were dismissed solely on the ground of
limitation, the petitioners were denied an opportunity
to challenge Ext.P6 order on the ground that it is
vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. It is contended
that the Tribunal, having all the trappings of a Civil
Court, ought to have considered the issue of fraud and
misrepresentation raised by the petitioners in Ext.P11.
Accordingly, this writ petition is filed to set aside
Exts.P6 and P10 orders and to declare Ext.P6 order
which was passed based on a joint statement filed by
misrepresentation and fraud committed by the 1 st
respondent, is a nullity.
11. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
2025:KER:21097
former President of the Society who held office from
04.02.2019 to 27.01.2024 got himself impleaded as the
additional 2nd respondent.
12. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 st
respondent wherein it is contended that Ext.P5
resolution was unanimously passed by the Managing
Committee deciding to file a joint statement before the
Arbitration Court and empowering the President to sign
the joint statement on behalf of the Managing
Committee. In terms of Ext.P5 resolution, Ext.R1(a)
joint statement was filed before the Co-operative
Arbitration Court. Ext.R1(a) joint statement which is
dated 17.01.2020 is signed by the petitioners as well as
the additional 2nd respondent, who was the President at
2025:KER:21097
the relevant time. Based on Ext.R1(a) joint statement,
the Co-operative Arbitration Court passed Ext.P6 order.
Pursuant to Ext.P6 order, the Managing Committee in
its meeting held on 01.02.2020 unanimously resolved to
grant the benefits due to the 1st respondent. The 1st
respondent has produced the minutes of the meeting of
the Managing Committee dated 01.02.2020
implementing Ext.P6 order as Ext.R1(b). The 1 st
respondent has also produced the letter of the 2nd
respondent President dated 01.02.2020 addressed to the
concurrent Auditor for grant of benefits to the 1 st
respondent pursuant to Ext.P6 as Ext.R1(c). It is
further stated that the 1st respondent retired from
service on 31.03.2020. After the retirement, the 1 st
2025:KER:21097
respondent filed an application for issuance of
certificate under Rule 72 of the Rules before the Co-
operative Arbitration Court. In the said application, a
written statement was filed by the petitioners herein
stating that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the
petitioners against the 1st respondent was settled in
terms of joint statement filed by the parties and the 1 st
respondent was reinstated in service by the Society. It
was also stated that against the joint statement filed by
the parties a member of the Society has filed a petition
before the Joint Registrar for rescinding the resolution
and the same is pending and for the said reason the
petitioners could not act in terms of the joint
statement. The Co-operative Arbitration Court, by
2025:KER:21097
Ext.R1(i) order, allowed the application and directed
the Society to issue Form No.12 certificate under Rule
72 of the Rules. The 1st respondent states that the
petitioners have raised the allegation that the joint
statement was obtained by fraud only in the W.P.(C)
No.163 of 2022, which is an afterthought.
13. A counter affidavit is filed by the additional
2nd respondent contending that the joint statement was
filed before the Arbitration Court on the basis of a
decision taken by the Managing Committee. However,
the Managing Committee was misled by the 1 st
respondent in passing the said resolution. It is further
stated that Ext.R1(c) is fraudulently created.
14. A reply affidavit has been filed by the
2025:KER:21097
petitioners denying the averments of the 1 st respondent
in the counter affidavit.
15. Heard Sri. R.K. Muraleedharan, the learned
Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. A.L. Navaneeth, the
learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri. K.B.
Ganesh, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
16. According to the petitioners, Ext.P5 resolution
was passed because the members of the Managing
Committee were misled and were not made aware of
the consequences of filing of the joint statement. The
joint statement was thus filed under such circumstances.
It is contended that, since the joint statement was filed
based on a misrepresentation of fact, the same is
vitiated by fraud, and consequently, Ext.P6 order of the
2025:KER:21097
Co-operative Arbitration Court accepting the joint
statement and passing an order in terms of the joint
statement cannot be sustained.
17. Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, the learned counsel
further submits that the Co-operative Tribunal erred in
rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners solely on
the ground of limitation, without addressing the various
grounds raised by the petitioners. It is contended that,
without considering the appeal on its merits, the
Tribunal wrongly observed that there was no
satisfactory evidence adduced by the petitioners before
the Co-operative Arbitration Court in the Review
Petition, even though the Review Petition was rejected
solely on the ground of limitation. It is also contended
2025:KER:21097
that since the Co-operative Arbitration Court possesses
the trappings of civil court, it ought to have examined
the merits of the averments made by the petitioners in
Ext.P11 appeal. Sri. R.K. Muraleedharan relied on the
provisions of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, and submitted that the joint statement
ought not to have been accepted by the Co-operative
Arbitration Court. It is further submitted that the
Court ought to have reviewed its order when it was
brought to its notice that the joint statement had been
filed by misleading the Managing Committee.
18. Sri.A.L.Navaneeth, the learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the
petitioners never had a case that the joint statement
2025:KER:21097
was obtained by fraud or by misleading the members of
the Managing Committee when they had unanimously
implemented the decision in Ext.P6 in the meeting held
on 01.02.2020, as evidenced by Ext.R1(b). The learned
counsel refers to Ext.P6 order, wherein the Arbitration
Court recorded that both parties had reported that the
matter was discussed and settled between them in
accordance with the terms set out in the joint
statement. It is further contended that, for nearly two
years, the petitioners never raised any allegation that
the joint statement had been filed by misleading the
Managing Committee. It is only when the 1st
respondent filed the Execution Petition that they raised
the allegation that Ext.P6 order was obtained by fraud.
2025:KER:21097
Sri. Navaneeth points out that, in the written statement
filed before the Arbitration Court in the application
submitted under Rule 72 of the Rules, it was admitted
by the petitioners that Ext.P6 order was passed on the
basis of joint statement. It is further submitted that,
in the present writ petition, the petitioners have
suppressed the fact regarding the written statement filed
before the Arbitration Court in response to the
application filed under Rule 72. It is also stated that
these facts were not stated before the Arbitration Court
when the Review Petition was filed, nor in Ext.P11
appeal. It was only after nearly two years, and
following the retirement of the 1st respondent, that the
petitioners have come forward with an allegation that
2025:KER:21097
the joint statement was filed by misleading the
members of the Managing Committee. Ext.R1(c) and
the decision taken to implement Ext.P6 order was also
not brought to the notice of this Court.
19. In reply to the arguments of Sri.Navaneeth,
Sri. Muraleedharan submits that when fraud is alleged,
the Court has power to interfere at any stage of the
proceedings. The learned Counsel relied on the
decision of this Court in Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala
and Another [2006 KHC 1248 : 2006 (3) KLT 941 :
(2006) 7 SCC 416] in support of his contention.
20. Sri.A.L.Navaneeth relied on the decision of
this Court in Jayaram K. and Others v. Bangalore
Development Authority and Others [2021 KHC 6802] :
2025:KER:21097
2022 (1) KLT 168 : (2022) 12 SCC 815] and submits
that in order to prevent multiplicity of proceedings
involving the same subject matter - and more
importantly, to curb the practice of obtaining
inconsistent orders from different judicial forums by
suppressing material facts, either though silence or by
making misleading statements in pleadings to escape
liability for false statement - parties are required to
disclose details of all legal proceedings and litigations,
past or present, concerning any part of the subject
matter of the dispute that is within their knowledge.
21. From Ext.P6, it is evident that the order was
passed on the basis of the joint statement filed by the
petitioners and the 1st respondent. A reading of
2025:KER:21097
paragraph 2 of the order reveals that it was only after
both parties submitted that the matter had been
discussed and settled between them in accordance with
the conditions set out in the joint statement, that the
joint statement was accepted and the same was decreed
accordingly. Ext.P6 was challenged before this Court
by the 1st petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.163/2022 and
the same was dismissed by this Court by Ext.P8
judgment. In Ext.P8 judgment, this Court, in
paragraph 3 observed as follows:-
"3. While so, W.P.(C) No.163/2022 has
been filed by the Bank, impugning Ext.P6
order of the 'Arbitration Court',
conceding that the same is based on a
Joint Memo filed by Sri. P.R. Lakshmanan
and its erstwhile Managing Committee,
but which, they allege, is fraudlent and
contrary to the interests of the Bank."
2025:KER:21097
W.P.(C) No.163/2022 was dismissed by Ext.P8 judgment
giving liberty to the Society to invoke alternative
remedies against Ext.P6, subject to law and limitations.
Although the petitioners filed a Review Petition, it was
dismissed by the Arbitration Court on the ground of
delay. Ext.P11 appeal preferred before the Co-operative
Tribunal under Section 82 of the Act was also dismissed
by the Tribunal by Ext.P12 order, holding that the
appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and
the Tribunal has no power to condone such delay.
22. The case of the petitioners is that the
Tribunal ought to have considered whether the joint
statement, which formed the basis of Ext.P6 order,
was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. However,
2025:KER:21097
it is evident that the said question did not arise for
consideration before the Tribunal, as the appeal was
dismissed solely on the ground of delay.
23. On a perusal of Ext.P6 order, it is evident
that the Co-operative Arbitration Court passed the order
based on a joint statement filed by the parties. The
decision to file the joint statement was recorded in
Ext.P5, which is a unanimous resolution. The case of
the petitioners is that this resolution was passed by
misleading the members of the Managing Committee.
The petitioners cannot now be heard to contend that
the Managing Committee was misled by anyone at the
time of taking the decision. There are no materials
before this Court to support the contention of the
2025:KER:21097
petitioners that the Managing Committee was misled by
anyone while taking the decision.
24. After Ext.P6 order, the same was implemented
by a unanimous decision taken by the Managing
Committee on 01.02.2020. At that time, the petitioners
did not allege that the joint statement was filed based
on any misrepresentation or fraud. The fact that
Ext.P6 order was passed based on a joint statement was
also not disputed before the Arbitration Court in the
written statement filed in response to the application
filed by the 1st respondent under Rule 72 of the Rules.
Although it was mentioned that an application under
Rule 176 is pending before the Joint Registrar to
rescind Ext.P5 resolution, there is no averment therein
2025:KER:21097
that the joint statement was filed due to
misrepresentation or that is vitiated by fraud.
25. Upon analysing the entire facts, I find that,
the contention of the petitioners that the joint
statement was filed based on fraud and
misrepresentation is an afterthought on the part of the
Society. Having resolved to file a joint statement in
the arbitration case, and with the same having been
signed by the President of the Managing Committee,
and further, having admitted before the Arbitration
Court to having filed such a joint statement, which was
subsequently implemented in the meeting held on
01.02.2020 unanimously, as evident from Ext.R1(b), I
am of the view that, the petitioners cannot now turn
2025:KER:21097
round and disown the joint statement filed by them,
on the basis of which with Ext.P6 order was passed.
26. This Court in Lalithamma v. M.S. Co-
operative Society [1979 KHC 375 : 1979 KLT 894] has
held that the provisions of Limitations Act will not
apply to proceedings before the Kerala Co-operative
Tribunal. If an appeal under Section 82 of the Act is
filed out of time, delay cannot be condoned. In Kavi
Rajan v. Co-operative Tribunal [ 1989 KHC 547 : 1989
(2) KLT 895], the Division Bench of this Court has
taken the view that Limitation Act does not apply to
proceedings under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
The Co-operative Tribunal has rightly dismissed the
appeal preferred by the petitioners vide Ext.P12.
2025:KER:21097
I do not find any infirmity in Exts.P6 and P12
orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SRJ
2025:KER:21097
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34595/2024
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED
27.03.2015.
EXHIBIT-P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE JOINT
REGISTRAR (GENERAL), WAYANAD DATED 21.06.2016
ALONG WITH THE ENQUIRY REPORT.
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER SOCIETY DATED 02.04.2015.
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
DATED 25.02.2017.
EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION ARC NO. 27/2019 FILED
BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT (NORTHERN)
KOZHIKODE BY THE RESPONDENT DATED NIL JULY
2019.
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MINUTES OF
THE 1ST PETITIONER SOCIETY DATED 07.01.2020.
EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CO-OPERATIVE
ARBITRATION COURT(NORTHERN), KOZHIKODE IN ARC
NO. 27/2019 DATED 20.01.2020.
EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. JRGWYD /317/2021-
CRP ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
WAYANAD DATED 31.05.2021.
EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NOS. 163/2022 AND
18148/2022 DATED 13.06.2022.
EXHIBIT-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA NOS.
1246/2022 AND 1142/2022 DATED 25.08.2022.
2025:KER:21097
EXHIBIT-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN UNNUMBERED RP IN
ARC NO. 27/2019 DATED 31.01.2023.
EXHIBIT-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION NO. 282/2023
FILED BEFORE THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 282/2022
DATED 27.08.2024.
EXHIBIT-P13 TRUE COPY OF THE EP NO. 84/2021 IN ARC NO.
27/2019 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE,
MANATHAVADY DATED 01.11.2021.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT STATEMENT DATED
17.1.2020 FILED BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT IN
ARC 27/2019.
EXHIBIT-R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE TYPED COPY OF THE MINUTES OF
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE PETITIONER
BANK HELD ON 01.02.2020 AT PAGE 291 OF MINUTES
BOOK NO. 41.
EXHIBIT-R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.2.2020
ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER BANK
TO THE CONCURRENT AUDITOR.
EXHIBIT-R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
11.3.2020 ISSUED TO THIS RESPONDENT BY THE
PETITIONER BANK.
EXHIBIT-R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED
16.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO THIS
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 20.3.2020
ISSUED TO THIS RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE CHARGE MEMO
2025:KER:21097
DATED 28.4.2020 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED
15.1.2021 IN ARC NO. 27/2019 FILED BEFORE THE CO-
OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT.
EXHIBIT-R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.8.2021 IN ARC
27/2019 PASSED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION
COURT.
EXHIBIT-R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 2.2.2024
SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT WITHOUT ITS
ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT-R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.1.2024 IN
W.A. NO. 824 OF 2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT-R1(l) TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED ON
14.5.2024 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED
16.05.2024.
EXHIBIT-R1(m) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
06.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO THIS
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-R1(n) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
13.8.2024 ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THIS
RESPONDENT.
