Disposed

Ernakulam Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Kerala HC23 Nov 2018WP(C)/36310/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a cooperative bank under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court directed the Arbitrator (Inspector of Co-operative Societies) to consider an impleading application within one month and finally dispose of the pending arbitration reference within six months, while dispensing with notice to the respondents in the original suit.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent (Arbitrator) directed to decide the impleading application within one month and finally dispose of the arbitration reference within six months of the judgment date.

Ernakulam Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vs the Joint… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 36310 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ERNAKULAM URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.7, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM - 682016, REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.MONAYE SRI.B.NAMADEVA PRABHU

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682030.

¶11

2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682016.

¶12

3 INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MARADU UNIT, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KANAYANNOOR TALUK, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682016.

¶13

4 ANIE JAQUILINE,D/O. VARGHESE, ASSARIMATTEL, PALARIVATTOM DESOM, PUNITHURA VILLAGE, PIN-682025.

¶14

5 CHARLES PINHERO,S/O. CARAL PINHERO, KADAVATH PARAMBIL, VALLARPADAM DESOM, MULAVUKAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 36310 of 2018

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, which is an Urban Cooperative Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules made thereunder, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking

¶20

a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to consider ARC No.936 of 2008 (Ext.P2) filed under Section 69 of the Act and decide the

¶21

dispute and pass an award. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the 3^rd

¶22

respondent Inspector of Co-operative Societies, who is the Arbitrator, to post ARC No.936 of 2008 (Ext.P2) to a near date, take evidence, hear arguments and decide the dispute.

¶23

On 08.11.2018, when this writ petition

¶24

came up for admission, the learned Senior

¶25

Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶27

WP(C).No. 36310 of 2018

¶28

¶29

petitioner and also the learned Senior Government

¶30

Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the 4^th respondent, who is the defendant in ARC No.936 of 2008 and

¶31

the 5^th respondent, who is the additional defendant sought to be impleaded in that ARC, is dispensed with.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that ARC No.936 of 2008 filed by the petitioner against the 4^th respondent, under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies

¶33

Act, is pending consideration before the 3^rd respondent for the last several years. Therefore, early disposal of the said ARC is

¶34

highly essential. The learned counsel would point out that the 4^th respondent, who is the sole defendant in that ARC, has already entered

¶35

appearance and filed written statement. Ext.P7 interlocutory application filed to implead the 5^th

¶36

WP(C).No. 36310 of 2018

¶37

¶38

respondent herein as additional 2^nd defendant in

¶39

that ARC is also pending consideration.

¶40

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on

¶41

instructions from the 3^rd respondent, would submit

¶42

that the 3^rd respondent shall consider and pass final orders on ARC No.936 of 2018, within a period of six months.

¶43

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P7 interlocutory application for

¶44

impleadment, with notice to both sides and take an appropriate decision, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

¶45

judgment. If the said interlocutory application is allowed, the additional defendant shall be

¶46

given a reasonable time to file written statement. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent shall

¶47

finally dispose of ARC No.936 of 2008 (Ext.P2), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within

¶48

WP(C).No. 36310 of 2018

¶49

¶50

a period of six months from the date of receipt

¶51

of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

ANIL K.NARENDRAN,JUDGE

¶54

WP(C).No. 36310 of 2018

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MORTGAGE DEED DATED 02/07/2001. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC 936/2008 DATED 17/03/2008. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 14/07/2008. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 15/12/2008 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 13/10/2009. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS DATED 20/04/2011. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION DATED 22/03/2011. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THAT EARLY POSTING PETITION WITH AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 12/02/2018. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT DATED 12/02/2018.

¶59

AV/27/11

Ernakulam Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ernakulam Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devadas M., Vs Nanniyode Service Co-Operative Bank LTNO.1161

Suresh Babu .M Vs Surendran

Smt. Rajitha K.P Vs the Secretary

Vinayan G., Vs the State of Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-Operative Bnak LTD.NO.T-131 Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram

Parameswaran Nair Vs Gireesh Kumar@Kannan