Dismissed

The Kottappady Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. E155, v. Sarasu N.P

Kerala HC4 Sept 2023RP/860/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a review petition filed by a co-operative bank seeking to overturn an order directing it to return amounts remitted by a former employee to avoid disciplinary action. The court held that the original judgment was not erroneous and directed that the matter be reconsidered by the bank.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; bank directed to recount submissions regarding disbursement of amounts.

The Kottappady Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. E155… — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 13TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

RP NO. 860 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 38968/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE KOTTAPPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. E155,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAPPADY P.O,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686692
BY ADV P.V.BABY

¶9

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

¶10

1 SARASU N.P W/O. PADMANABHAN, OLIKKAL HOUSE, KAITHAKADU KARA, PATTIMATTOM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683562

¶11

2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) FIFTH FLOOR, NEW BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, KAKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686695

¶13

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.09.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

RP NO. 860 OF 2023

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition, seeking review of the
judgment of this Court dated 15.06.2023, has
been filed on the assertion that the amounts
paid by the petitioner was not as by way of a
“deposit”, but in order to save her of further
disciplinary action and under the Penal Law.

¶18

petitioner – Bank, argued that, as evident from
Annexure A1 produced along with this petition
for review, the writ petitioner had remitted the
amounts in question to avoid further action
against her; and therefore, that there is no
question of any amount being returned to her, as
has been ordered by this Court. He thus prayed
that this petition be allowed.

¶19

3.Sri.T.R.Hairkumar – learned counsel for

¶20

RP NO. 860 OF 2023

¶21

¶22

the respondent, in refutation submitted that
there is no reason for the petitioner – Bank to
file this review petition because this Court had
adverted to the relevant facts correctly and has
only directed them to consider her case leading
to the disbursement of eligible amounts to her.
He thus prayed that this petition be dismissed.

¶23

4.The rival submissions being so recorded,
I am afraid that one cannot fathom the purport
of the contention of the review petitioner
because, this Court had clearly noticed that the
petitioner remitted the amount in question, on
being faced with an allegation that she was
guilty of supervisory latches. The facts which
persuaded this Court to issue the directions in
the judgment are available in paragraph Nos.6
and 7 of it, which are not in contest even in
this review petition. The only argument of

¶24

RP NO. 860 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

petitioner, as I have already noticed above, is
that the amounts remitted by the petitioner are
not kept in a deposit, but had been disbursed to
various customers; and further that she had
remitted the same to avoid disciplinary action
and other penal consequences.

¶27

5.There can be no doubt, even from a

¶28

reading of the judgment sought to be reviewed,
that this Court was fully aware of the germane
facts; and has made it very clear that it is
only if the petitioner had been found guilty of
misappropriation/pilferage or for any other
conduct unbecoming of her office, could she be
penalized or imposed punishment. This has been
left to the Society to decide, adverting to all
relevant and vital aspects; and I see no reason
why the directions in the judgment should now
been reviewed.

¶29

RP NO. 860 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

In the afore circumstances, this review
petition is dismissed; however, recording the
submissions of Sri.P.V.Baby - learned counsel
for the petitioner, that the amounts remitted by
the petitioner, as reflected in Annexures A1 and
A2, is not kept in a deposit, but had been
disbursed to the customers at the relevant time.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

SAS

¶36

RP NO. 860 OF 2023

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF RP 860/2023

¶39

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶40

ANNEXURE A1A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 27/3/2003
SUBMITTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER BEFORE THE
DISCIPLINARY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE BANK
ANNEXURE A2A TRUE COPY OF PAGE NO.47 OF THE 'ADVANCE DUE
BY BANK REGISTER' OF THE BANK
ANNEXURE A3A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.VII(2) DATED
29/03/2003 OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE BANK

The Kottappady Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. E155, v. Sarasu N.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kottappady Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. E155, v. Sarasu N.P

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

Peirce Leslie India Limited, Vs Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel 'Mv Corals' (Imo 9651008)

Jayanthi K.P. Vs the Executive Director

Chandradas C.V Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Sreekumaran @ Sreekumaran.B. Vs Sudevan

Ananda Babu M.J Vs Shri. Biju Prabhakar

Sudharma.T Vs Vijayan