Allowed

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

Kerala HC4 Dec 2021WP(C)/23621/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition and quashed an ex parte award passed by an Arbitration Conciliation Centre against petitioners who were not given a reasonable time to file objections or adduce evidence. The court directed a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed, Ex Parte Award (Ext P6) quashed. Petitioners to file objections on 15.12.2021; matter to be tried and disposed of within three weeks thereafter.

Linta Sabu Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General) — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶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. 23621 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 LINTA SABU,AGED 50 YEARS W/O. SABU MATHEW, THACHANKERY HOUSE, CHAMBAKKARA, KARUKACHAL, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686539.

¶8

2 SABU MATHEW ,AGED 54 YEARS S/O. MATHEW SEBASTIAN, THACHANKERY HOUSE, CHAMBAKKARA, KARUKACHAL, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686539.

¶9

BY ADVS. JOBI.A.THAMPI M.KABANI DINESH SHOUKATH HUSAIN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

BY ADV LAL GEORGE SR. GP SMT.MABLE C KURIAN

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(C) NO.23621 of 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

ARC No. 163 of 2020 was filed against the

¶20

petitioners by the 3^rd respondent society for

¶21

recovery of amounts allegedly due under a credit facility availed from the Bank. In the course of the ARC, the petitioners were set ex parte consequent to non-appearance. Application was filed seeking to set aside the ex parte order. As is evident by Ext P5,

¶22

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 petitioners have approached this Court.

¶23

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

¶24

Ext P5 is the communication issued by the 2^nd respondent to the petitioners 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

¶25

W.P(C) NO.23621 of 2021

¶26

¶27

the petitioners – defendants. On the application to set aside the ex parte order being allowed, it was only proper that the defendants – petitioners were

¶28

granted a reasonable time to file their

¶29

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

¶30

The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter

¶31

affidavit wherein it has been contended that on 06.08.2021 when the matter was taken up, no objections or documents were filed by the defendants-petitioners and that they had agreed to

¶32

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 petitioners – defendants, the alleged admission/consent does not find a place. In the circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention of the 3^rd respondent.

¶33

On the facts as noticed above, I am of the

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(C) NO.23621 of 2021

¶36

¶37

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed, Ext P6 award is quashed. The petitioners and the 3^rd respondent shall appear before the 2^nd respondent on 15.12.2021. The petitioners shall file their 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.23621 of 2021

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23621/2021

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION PETITION IN ARC NO.163/2020 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS (UNDATED) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS IN ARC NO.163/2020. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (I.A.NO.1/2021) FILED IN ARC NO.163/2020). Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FOLLOW-UP CASE RECORD OF THE 2ND 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.163/2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Linta Sabu v. the Assistant 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

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

Sabu Mathew Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Judy George Vs State of Kerala