Allowed

The Chairman v. Bindu Mohan N.

Kerala HC9 Nov 2022WP(C)/6990/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kathirikkattil v. Bindu Mohan N., the High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition and set aside an ex-parte order refusing to set aside an ex-parte award. The court directed the Arbitration Court to decide the matter on merits within three weeks, conditional upon the petitioner filing a written statement.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P5 order; directed Arbitration Court to dispose of ARC No.105 of 2020 on merits within three weeks, conditional on petitioner filing written statement by 14.11.2022.

The Chairman Vs Bindu Mohan N. — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6990 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 THE CHAIRMAN (INCORRECTLY DESCRIBED AS PRESIDENT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS' FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS' FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 3 THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS' FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, KUDARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV M.SASINDRAN

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

BINDU MOHAN N., HRISHIMANGALAM, AMBALAKKARA P.O. VALAKOM, KOTTAKKARA, KOLLAM 691 506.

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C)No. 6990 of 2021

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶14

========================= W.P (C) No. 6990 of 2021

¶15

========================== Dated this the 9^th November, 2022

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioners impugns Ext.P5 order issued by the learned Presiding Officer of the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, on the ground that the conclusions therein are fallacious.

¶18

However, going by Ext.P5 - which is the order refusing to set aside an ex-parte award earlier issued by the Arbitration Court in favour of the respondent - and testing it against Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner for such purpose, I have no doubt that said Court could have issued it only in the manner presently done.

¶19

This is because, as rightly stated in Ext.P5 by the learned Presiding Officer, Ext.P4 contains no reasons as to why there was a delay of more than 628 days in making an application to set aside the ex-parte award; and all which is stated therein is a vague averment, that the deponent - who is the Managing Director of the Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation Ltd. - came to be aware of the ex-parte award only after he joined in such position on

¶20

WP(C)No. 6990 of 2021

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

13.01.2020. Even if this is true, the undeniable fact remains that the application was preferred only in February 2020, but there is no explanation as to why even that delay had been caused.

¶23

That said, the casual approach of the petitioner throughout the life of the ARC is evident from the number of postings recorded by the Presiding Officer in Ext.P5, namely more than 15, and this is more so because, even then did not file their written statement.

¶24

In such circumstances, this Court certainly deems it appropriate that matters are disposed of on its merits, rather than as ex-parte. However, I must also keep in mind the fact that petitioner is due to attain the age of superannuation in about 2.5 months from now.

¶25

Obviously, if petitioners require relief, they must be ready to face the proceedings within the shortest time frame.

¶26

I therefore, asked Sri.T.R.Harikumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, who replied that his client has been awaiting justice for the last several years and that if another 2 months pass, she will be left without any fruit to her labour, since what has been ordered by the Arbitration Court is regularization. He, therefore, prayed that, if this Court is inclined to direct the Arbitration Court to decide the ARC on its merits, it may be ordered to be done within not more than two weeks.

¶27

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

Taking note of the afore submissions, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P5, not because I find against it, but solely so as to pave way for consideration of the contentions of the rival parties on its merit; consequentially, directing the learned Presiding Officer of the Arbitration Court, to dispose of ARC No.105 of 2020 on its merits within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

I am fully aware that the time frame I have fixed is extremely short, but I request the learned Presiding Officer to make full endeavor to dispose of the matter within it; however, on condition that petitioners will file written statement not later than 14.11.2022.

¶31

The parties will mark appearance before the Arbitration Court at 11 A.M., on 15.11.2022, so as to enable it to comply with the afore time frame.

¶32

The petitioners are also warned that they shall not seek any adjournments in the afore process, and leave liberty to the Presiding Officer to deal with the ARC, if they still do so, recording reasons.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

anm

: 5 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6990/2021

¶39

PETITION	ERS'	EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE A.R.C. NO. 105 OF 2013 BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.05.2018 IN A.R.C NO. 105/2013 ISSUED BY THE CO- OPERATIVE ARBITRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN A.R.C. NO. 105/2013 DATED 10.02.2020 SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE AWARD DATED 10.05.2018.
EXHIBIT	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN A.R.C. 105/2013 FOR CONDONING THE DELAY ALONG WITH THE PETITION DATED 10.02.2020.
EXHIBIT	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2020 IN IA N. 18/20 IN A.R.C 105/2013 BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

The Chairman v. Bindu Mohan N.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman v. Bindu Mohan N.

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

Dr. Bhadrakumari S. Vs State of Kerala

Prof. (Dr) Sunny Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

The Council of Principals of Colleges in Kerala Vs State of Kerala

A. Shajahan Vs Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 995

Reshmi R Vs the Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.955

Jayakumar S. Vs Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.995