Dismissed

K.K.Balan v. the General Manager, Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC21 May 2013WP(C)/7595/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an Arbitrator's Allowance Reference Certificate (ARC) and the Tribunal's order dismissing the appellate revision. The Petitioners argued the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act. The Court held the Limitation Act does not apply to Section 69 proceedings and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; orders of the Arbitrator and Cooperative Tribunal not quashed.

K.K.Balan Vs the General Manager, Kozhikode District… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2013/31ST VAISAKHA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 7595 of 2013 (Y)

¶6

RP 29/2012 OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. K.K.BALAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.ANDY PANICKER, POOLAKOOL, KAKKATTIL PIN 673 506 (ASSISTANT CHERPURAM L.P.SCHOOL)

¶9

2. T.RADHAKRISHNAN,

¶10

S/O.KUHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, THODUVAYAL HOUSE, P.O.PERUVAYAL PIN 673 508 (PEON, GOVERNMENT U.P.SCHOOL, CHERUKUNNU VELAM P.O)

¶11

3. K.K.PRATHUMNAN, S/O.GOPALAN KIDAVU, KUNHIKANDY HOUSE, P.O.CHERAPURAM PIN: 673 512 (PD TEACHER, GOVERNMENT U.P.SCHOOL CHERUKUNNU, VELAM P.O.)

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE SRI.K.K.JAYARAJ NAMBIAR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. N.F.1635, KOZHIKODE

¶15

BY SRI.R.SUDHISH, SC, KOZHIKODE DIST.CO.OP. BANK, LTD.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 7595 of 2013 (Y) ---------------------------

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 16/05/2011. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORER DATED 21/12/2012.

¶21

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

BKA

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.7595 of 2013-Y

¶27

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2013

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The first petitioner has availed a loan from the respondent bank after executing a promissory note on 16.03.2005. Petitioners 2 and 3 were guarantors for the said transaction. A.R.C.No.702 of 2010 was filed under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short) for realisation of the amount due from the petitioners. The A.R.C was moved on 02.07.2010. As per Exhibit P1 Award, the ARC was allowed. Though the petitioners challenged Exhibit P1 before Kerala Cooperative Tribunal, in Revision Petition No. 29 of 2012, the same has also been dismissed. The petitioners have filed this writ petition aggrieved by Exhibits P1 and P2.

¶30

According to Advocate Philip M. Varughese who

¶31

appears for the petitioners, the promissory note, on the

¶32

W.P.(C)No.7595 of 2013

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

strength of which the ARC was filed by the respondent, was executed on 16.03.2005. Therefore, as on 02.07.2010, the date of filing of the ARC, the claim was barred by time, as evident from a reading of Article 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. V.R.Kalliyanikutty [1999(2) KLT 146 (SC)]. The petitioners therefore seek the issue of appropriate orders quashing Exhibits P1 and P2.

¶35

Advocate R. Sudhish appears for respondents. According to the counsel, the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to proceedings under Section 69 of the Act. Therefore, according to the counsel, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners lacks substance.

¶36

Heard. A perusal of the Limitation Act shows that the same is an enactment that applies to suits and institution of proceedings before the Civil Courts. The provisions of the said Act have no application to proceedings like the one in the present case, which are

¶37

W.P.(C)No.7595 of 2013

¶38

: 3 :

¶39

initiated under Section 69 of the Act. Section 69 is the statutory provision that confers powers on the Arbitrator as well as the Co-operative Tribunal to adjudicate disputes that arise under the Act. The decision relied upon by the petitioners, 1999(2) KLT 146 (SC) (Supra), was a case in which the question as to whether the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply to proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act had come up for consideration. The Apex Court held that only amounts that are legally recoverable can be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act. This is for the reason that the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act have been enacted to recover what is described by the enactment as “amount due”. It has been held by this Court that the words “amount due” does not include time barred debts.

¶40

A similar provision is absent in Section 69 of the Act. Section 69 confers only a power to decide disputes which include monetary disputes also.

¶41

W.P.(C)No.7595 of 2013

¶42

: 4 :

¶43

Therefore, on a consideration of the scope of the provisions, a Division Bench of this Court has in Kavi Rajan v. Co-operative Tribunal [1989 (2) KLT 895] held that the provisions of the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under Section 69 of the Act.

¶44

In view of the above, I do not find any grounds to entertain this writ petition. No other grounds are urged before me. Therefore, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶45

Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶46

kkj

K.K.Balan v. the General Manager, Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Balan v. the General Manager, Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aliummer Vs Nellanad Grama Panchayat

Nasim Elyas Vs Kodungallur Municipality

Jose.K.C. Vs Gandhigram Agrobased Industrial Co-Op. Society Ltd.

M/S.Pts Hotels India Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Renjith K.V. Vs Thrissur Corporation

Dr.Sajeev Vs the Secretary