Dismissed

V.Govindan Nair v. the General Manager

Kerala HC11 Feb 2015WP(C)/7618/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an arbitral award and subsequent review order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal. The petitioners questioned the maintainability of the arbitration petition filed by the Bank General Manager, the locus of jurisdiction, and raised novelty claims of limitation and improper creation of mortgage. The Court held that technical pleading defects could

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no merits.

V.Govindan Nair Vs the General Manager — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/22ND MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 7618 of 2009 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. V.GOVINDAN NAIR, VAYALERI HOUSE, ULLIYERI.PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

2. PUTHUKKUDI SHEELA, PALLIYIL HOUSE,

¶9

ORAVIL.PO, NADAVANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KOZHIKODE.

¶13

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

3. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.R. SUDHISH, SC. R2 & 3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 7618 of 2009 (V)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1: COPY OF AWARD DATED 30/10/2002 IN ARC NO.130/97 PASSED BY THE R2

¶22

P2: COPY OF APPEAL NO.129/2002 DATED 27/12/2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R3

¶23

P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30/8/2003 IN AP.1292002 PASSED BY THE R3

¶24

P4: COPY OF REVIEW PETITION NO.9/2004 DATED 18/2/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R3

¶25

P5: COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/3/2008 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.9/2004 PASSED BY THE R3

¶26

P6: COPY OF NOTICE DATED 20/2/2009 ISSUED BY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

¶27

P7: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 26/11/2001 IN ARC NO.130/1997 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶29

R1(A): COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEED SIGNED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶30

R1(B): COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM F DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEED SIGNED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶31

R1(C): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.C.B(1)725/2006 DATED 30/11/2006 OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

===================

W.P.(C). No.7618 OF 2009

¶38

=======================

¶39

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2015

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioners are challenging Ext.P1 Award passed by the 2^nd respondent in an arbitration case filed by the 1^st respondent, which was confirmed in Ext.P3 judgment of the 3^rd respondent Tribunal and further in Ext.P5 order passed by the said Tribunal dismissing a review petition filed by the petitioners. The arbitration case was filed before the 2^nd respondent by the 1^st respondent seeking realisation of an amount of Rs.4,53,255/- along with interest due from 1.2.1997 onwards, on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- at the rate of 24%. The amount was sought to be realised based on an allegation that the petitioners, after availing cash/credit facility from the 1^st respondent's Bank, had defaulted payment. Before the 2^nd respondent the petitioners have mainly disputed the demand for interest and also disputed the mortgage of the immovable property

¶42

W.P.(C). No.7618 OF 2009 2

¶43

as security. The contentions were negatived and Ext.P1 Award was passed permitting realisation of the amount as mentioned above. In the appeal filed before the 3^rd respondent Tribunal, contention was raised that the principal amount is not Rs.3,00,000/- but only Rs.2,75,000/- and that the agreed rate of interest was only 18%. But the Tribunal found that the principal amount Awarded under the mortgaged document was Rs.3,00,000/and the transaction being commercial in nature, the petitioners are liable to pay penal interest. However, the rate of interest was re-fixed as 18% per annum and the Award was modified to that extent. The petitioners again filed a review petition before the 3^rd respondent Tribunal contending that the 1^st respondent was not competent to create an equitable mortgage by taking custody of the title deed. It was further contended that the claim in question is barred by limitation since the suit was filed after three years of execution of the promissory note. But finding that those contentions were not raised in the appeal, the 3^rd

¶44

W.P.(C). No.7618 OF 2009

¶45

¶46

respondent found that there exists no error apparent on the face of the record which warranting interference in a review petition.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the arbitration petition itself was not maintainable because it was filed by the 1^st respondent not in his capacity as representing the Bank. According to Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies' Act only a dispute between a society and a creditor is maintainable before the Arbitrator. Drawing attention to cause title of Ext.P1 Award, it is pointed out that the petition was filed by the 'General Manager, District Co-operative Bank, Kozhikode'. But nothing is mentioned to the effect that the General Manager had filed the petition for and on behalf of the Bank in question, is the contention. It is argued that mearly because the bye-law of the Bank authorises the General Manager to sue on behalf of the Bank, it cannot be contended that the General Manager can institute the suit in his personal capacity.

¶48

W.P.(C). No.7618 OF 2009

¶49

¶50

It is to be noticed that the petitioner had never taken any contention either before the Arbitrator or before

¶51

the Tribunal with respect to locus standi of the 1^st respondent. From the petition it is evident that the arbitration case was filed for realisation of the amounts alleged to have been defaulted by the petitioners in the cash/credit facility availed from the Bank. Therefore it cannot be contended that the arbitration case was filed by the 1^st respondent in his personal capacity for realisation of any amount personally due to him from the petitioners. It is conceded by learned counsel that strict rules regarding pleadings and practice as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Civil Rules of Practice is not applicable with respect to proceedings under Section 69 of the Act. Hence the alleged technicality, in styling the petitioner in the cause title portion, cannot be countenanced for nullifying the Award.

¶52

Another contention raised is that the loan in question was availed from the Quilandy Branch of the

¶53

W.P.(C). No.7618 OF 2009 5

¶54

District Co-operative Bank. Hence the society coming within the purview of Section 69 is not the District Cooperative Bank, but its only the Quilandy Branch. The objection filed by the petitioners before the 1^st respondent is produced as Ex.P7. It is evident that the petitioners have conceded the availing of loan to the tune of Rs.2,75,000/from the District Co-operative Bank. It is further evident from Ext.P1 that the 1^st petitioner was examined as a witness before the Arbitrator. No contention was seen raised at any point of time refuting that the loan in question was not availed from the District Co-operative Bank. The 2^nd respondent had arrived at a conclusion that, there is evidence to the effect that the 2^nd respondent, who is the guarantor, had created an equitable mortgage by signing necessary documents at the Head Office of the District CoOperative Bank. Even in the appeal or in the review petition the petitioners have not raised any contention as above. Hence, this court is constrained to observe that such a contention is taken for the first time in this writ petition, in

¶55

W.P.(C). No.7618 OF 2009

¶56

¶57

a totally frivolous manner.

¶58

Lastly, the petitioner had raised the question of limitation. It is pointed out that the review petition was not entertained only on the basis that such a contention was not raised before the Arbitrator and in the appeal. Learned counsel contended that this court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is competent to look into such a contention, being one coming within the purview of legality and maintainability of the claim. It is trait law that, proceedings under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act is not a suit to which provisions of the limitation Act is applicable. Learned Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent had placed reliance in this regard on the decisions of this court in Thilakan v Mankai Coir Vyavasaya Co-operative Society Ltd. [1978 KLT 256] and in Kavi Rajan v Co-operative Tribunal [1989 (2) KLT 895].

¶59

When the statute provides effective remedy for resolution of dispute and when a further remedy of appeal is provided from the Award of the Arbitrator, judicial review

¶60

W.P.(C). No.7618 OF 2009

¶61

¶62

with respect to the decisions of such authorities are limited purely on legal aspects and sustainability of orders passed by the said authority on such legal aspects. The petitioners are raising so many contentions which are not at all agitated before the statutory authorities and which according to this court are totally frivolous and not sustainable. It is evident that the petitioners were successful in preventing the respondent Bank from realising the amounts, which were availed as cash/credit facility, in the year 1994, for a period of more than 20 years. The attitude of the petitioners seems to be highly frivolous and contumacious, which can only be termed as methods to avoid payment of amounts legally due to the Bank by any means of crook.

¶63

Under such circumstances the writ petition is absolutely without any merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶66

SKV

V.Govindan Nair v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Govindan Nair v. the General Manager

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

Sandeep T Vs Shri Antony Chacko

Moospet Service Co-Operative Bank Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Employees Pensin

M/S.Kitex Group of Companies Vs K.S.E.B and Others

The Manager Vs Viswas Mehta

S Ansalam Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Suresh Kumar Vs R.Janardhanan Pillai & Others