Allowed

Sabu Mathew v. the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Kerala HC4 Dec 2021WP(C)/22736/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition and quashed an ex parte award passed by the 2nd respondent (Assistant Registrar) in Arbitration Reference No. 162 of 2020. The Court held that even with an alleged admission of liability, the petitioner must be granted a reasonable opportunity to file objections or adduce evidence before the adjudication proceeds. The parties were directed to appear for a fresh he

What did the court decide?

Ex parte award dated 06.08.2021 (Ext P6) is quashed. Petitioner shall file objections/written statement on 15.12.2021. Fresh hearing to be concluded within three weeks.

Sabu Mathew Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 22736 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SABU MATHEW,AGED 54 YEARS S/O MATHEW SEBASTIAN, THACHANKERY HOUSE, CHAMBAKKARA, KARUKACHAL, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN686539. BY ADVS. JOBI.A.THAMPI M.KABANI DINESH SHOUKATH HUSAIN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENRAL), CHANGANASSERY, CHANGANASSERY P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686101.

¶10

2 THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER AND ARBITRATOR VAZHAPPILLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK SCB GROUP, CHANGANASSERY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686103.

¶11

3 THE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,VAZHAPPILLY, NO.K/108 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SEBASTIEN J.PALATHARA,PALATHARA HOUSE, CHETHIPPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686103.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI. LAL GEORGE

¶13

SRI.SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000) SR. GP SMT.MABLE C KURIAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P(C) NO.22736 of 2021

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

ARC No. 162 of 2020 was filed against the

¶19

petitioner by the 3^rd respondent society for recovery of amounts allegedly due under a credit facility availed from the Bank. In the course of the ARC, the petitioner was set ex parte consequent to nonappearance. Application was filed seeking to set aside the ex parte order. As is evident by Ext P5, the application stood posted to 06.08.2021. On the said date, the ARC itself was disposed of as per Ext P6 award. It is aggrieved thereby that the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶20

Heard Sri.Jobi A.Thampi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior Government Pleader and Sri. Lal George, learned standing counsel for the 3^rd respondent bank.

¶21

Ext P5 is the communication issued by the 2^nd respondent to the petitioner intimating the listing of the application to set aside ex parte to 06.08.2021. On the dame day to which the application stood posted, Ext P6 award has been passed. No doubt, the award makes mention of the appearance of

¶22

W.P(C) NO.22736 of 2021

¶23

¶24

the petitioner – defendant. On the application to

¶25

set aside the ex parte order being allowed, it was

¶26

only proper that the defendant – petitioner were

¶27

granted a reasonable time to file his

¶28

objections/written statement, if any, and to adduce evidence, if any, to substantiate his contentions.

¶29

The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter

¶30

affidavit wherein it has been contended that on 06.08.2021 when the matter was taken up, no

¶31

objections or documents were filed by the defendantpetitioner and that he had agreed to remit the entire arrears. Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel for the Bank submits that, on the liability having been admitted, they are not entitled to challenge the order. However, in Ext P6 but for recording the appearance of the petitioner – defendant, the alleged admission/consent does not find a place. In the circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention of the 3^rd respondent.

¶32

On the facts as noticed above, I am of the

¶33

opinion that an opportunity is liable to be granted to the petitioner.

¶34

W.P(C) NO.22736 of 2021

¶35

¶36

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed, Ext P6

¶37

award is quashed. The petitioner and the 3^rd respondent shall appear before the 2^nd respondent on 15.12.2021. The petitioner shall file his objections/written statement, if any, on that date. Thereafter, the ARC shall be tried and dispose of within a further period of three weeks therefrom.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

vdv

W.P(C) NO.22736 of 2021

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22736/2021

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION PETITION IN ARC NO.162/2020 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS(UNDATED) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN ARC NO.162/2020. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (I.A.NO.1/2021) FILED IN ARC NO.162/2020) Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FOLLOW -UP CASE RECORD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY BELIEVERS CHURCH MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVALLA ON 16.03.2021. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 06.08.2021 IN ARC NO.162/2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Sabu Mathew v. the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabu Mathew v. the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Airport Golf View Hotels and Suites Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Sanjay H Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

V.Manoj, Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (G)

Johnson Payyappilly Vs the State of Kerala

Linta Sabu Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Judy George Vs State of Kerala