Allowed

E.A. Ouseph v. Karuvannur Service Co-Operaticve Bank

Kerala HC26 Jul 2016WP(C)/12360/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Kerala Co-operative Tribunal order that dismissed a revision petition for alleged delay. Relying on a prior High Court judgment establishing a five-month period for revisions in cooperative matters, the Court held the petitioners were not non-suited and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the merits of the revision petition within three months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the Co-operative Arbitration Tribunal is directed to reconsider the petitioners' revision submitted by them in accordance with law after providing notice to all concerned

E.A. Ouseph Vs Karuvannur Service Co-Operaticve Bank — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 12360 of 2015 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

----------

¶8

1. E.A. OUSEPH, ATTENDER, KARUVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KARIVANNUR,THRISSUR.

¶9

2. K.V.KUNJIKUTTAN,ATTENDER, KARUVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KARIVANNUR,THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

-----------

¶13

1. KARUVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATICVE BANK REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,KARIVANNUR, THRISSUR-680001.

¶14

2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), THRISSUR-680001.

¶15

3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), MUKUNDAPURAM,THRISSUR-680 001.

¶16

4. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,-695001.

¶17

5. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT (NORTHERN REGION),KOZHIKODE-673572.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN R2 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJESH T.R.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 12360 of 2015 (T)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXT.P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)36/88 CO-OPERATION DATED 27-9-1988 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXT.P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.DATED 27-4-1991
EXT.P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.7/96 DATED 25-1-1996
EXT.P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)519/08 DATED 13-8-2008
EXT.P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR 15/97 DATED 30-4-1997
EXT.P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17-10-2007 IN RESPECT OF FIRST PETITIONER
EXT.P7:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17-10-2007 IN RESPECT OF 2ND PETITIONER
EXT.P8:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
EXT.P9:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR
EXT.P10:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13-12-2013 IN A.R.C.130 OF 2011 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT(NORTHERN)KOZHIKODE.
EXT.P11:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AS R.P.62 OF 2014
EXT.P12:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-2-2015 IN REVISION PETITION NO.62 OF 2014 OF THE KERALA CO- OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶30

W.P.(C)NO.12360 OF 2015

¶31

Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners

¶34

seeking to quash Ext.P12 order passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in revision petition No.62/2014 dated 28.02.2015, whereby Ext.P11 revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed on the ground of delay, and for other related reliefs.

¶35

Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶36

Petitioners are working as attenders in the service of the first respondent Co-operative society. On competition of 10 years of service, a time bound non-cadre grade promotion was granted to them and the scale applicable to the next post was sanctioned. On completion of 20 years, another grade was granted and scale applicable to the next posting was

¶37

W.P.(C)NO.12360 OF 2015 2

¶38

granted on such granting of grade. When the proposal for third higher grade was sent to the Assistant Registrar for approval, Exts.P6 and P7 were issued revising the scale granted to the petitioners from the date of sanctioning of the first higher grade in the year 1988. Thereupon, the first respondent society has issued Ext.P8 order, directing to recover amounts of Rs.4,65,507/- (Rupees four lakhs sixty five thousand five hundred and seven only) and Rs.4,04,463/- (Rupees four lakhs four thousand four hundred and sixty three only) respectively from the petitioners. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, petitioners approached the Arbitration Court, however the same was dismissed by the Arbitration Court as per Ext.P10 award. Aggrieved by Ext.P10, petitioners preferred Ext.P11 revision, which was dismissed by the Tribunal as per Ext.P12 order, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the first respondent, perused

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C)NO.12360 OF 2015

¶42

the documents and pleadings. Ext.P12 order is passed by the Tribunal holding that the revision is filed by the

¶43

petitioners with huge delay. According to the petitioners, they have submitted Ext.P11 revision within the time frame. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that either under the Cooperative Societies Act or under the Rules, time limit is fixed for preferring a revision. The order of the Arbitration Court is dated 13.12.2013, which was communicated to the petitioners by registered post on 14.02.2014. Petitioners have preferred a revision on 09.07.2014. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the law laid down by this court in 2005 KHC 1019 = 2005(3) KLT 655, this court has provided a five months period for preferring a revision in the absence of any limitation period prescribed under the Act or the Rules. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the said judgment.

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C)NO.12360 OF 2015

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent has opposed the arguments put forth by the petitioners contending that, there is huge delay on the part of the petitioners in preferring the revision and since provisions are absent under the Act or the Rues for preferring the revision same could have been filed within a reasonable period, which according to the first respondent is 90 days period.

¶47

5 . On evaluating the rival submissions made across the bar and reckoning the legal circumstances put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the judgment rendered by this court in the judgment cited (supra). Moreover, the rule of law as well as the justice delivery system requires every matter to be decided on merits and therefore, when there is a judgment rendered by this court providing an opportunity to a litigant to prefer a revision within a period of five months from the date

¶48

of communication of the award passed by the

¶49

¶50

W.P.(C)NO.12360 OF 2015

¶51

Arbitration Court, I do not find any reason to non suit the petitioners otherwise. Therefore the writ petition is allowed and the Co-operative Arbitration Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to re-consider Ext.P11 revision submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law after providing notice to all concerned, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶53

sd/-

¶54

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶55

R.AV

E.A. Ouseph v. Karuvannur Service Co-Operaticve Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.A. Ouseph v. Karuvannur Service Co-Operaticve Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreedeviyamma Vs the Branch Manager

Baby Sebastian Vs Dist.Collector, Kottayam

Vijayabhaskar v. Vs Branch Manager

Vakkayil Rahees Vs Joseph

Saseendraraj Vs Reshma

The Kerala State Co-Op.Employees Pension Vs M.K.Santha