Disposed

Jaffar P.E v. the Manager

Kerala HC5 Jun 2023WP(C)/4726/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging the quantum of recovery notices issued by Sale Officers based on earlier arbitrator awards. The Court held it could not adjudicate on calculation merits and granted liberty to petitioners to file objections with the Officers within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to move Sale Officers with objections regarding calculation of amounts within two weeks; no objection barred; further recovery proceedings permitted.

Jaffar P.E Vs the Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4746 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BINEESH E.M., AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O EDATHARA MADHAVAN, MULLUR,
PARAPPUR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680552.

¶8

BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
P.SHAHEED

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER,

¶11

ADAT FARMERS’ SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.689,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (GENERAL), AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.,
PIN – 680003.

¶12

2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680003.

¶13

3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680003.

¶14

4 ADAT FARMERS' SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.689, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR – 680 551, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN
SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR.GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).6986/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C)Nos.4746 & 6986/2023

¶18

-2-

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶22

WP(C) NO. 6986 OF 2023

¶23

PETITIONER:

¶24

CHANDRALEKHA T.K., AGED 73 YEARS,
W/O. MADHAVAN (LATE), EDATHARA HOUSE,
PARAPPUR.P.O., MULLUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680552.

¶25

BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
P.SHAHEED

¶26

RESPONDENTS:

¶27

1 THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, ADAT FARMERS' SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.689, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN – 680003.

¶28

2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN – 680003.

¶29

3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN – 680003.

¶30

4 ADAT FARMERS' SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.689, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN – 680551.

¶31

WP(C)Nos.4746 & 6986/2023

¶32

-3-

¶33

BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN
SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR.GP

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).4746/2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

WP(C)Nos.4746 & 6986/2023

¶36

-4-

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

[WP(C) Nos.4746/2023, 6986/2023]

¶39

It is conceded by both sides that the sole

¶40

objection raised by the petitioners in these two

¶41

cases – which have been heard together, taking

¶42

note of the analogous factual circumstances
present – is that the amounts sought to be

¶43

recovered by the respective Sale Officers are
much higher than what has been allowed by the
statutory Arbitrator, in the Awards issued
against them earlier.

¶44

2.I am afraid that this Court cannot enter

¶45

into the merits of the calculations arrived at
by the Sale Officers while issuing the impugned

¶46

notices; and if the petitioners have any
objection that it is in excess of what has been
permitted by the Awards, it is for them to move
the said officer himself and file objections.

¶47

3.Presumably being aware of the mind of

¶48

WP(C)Nos.4746 & 6986/2023

¶49

this Court as afore, Sri.M.Sasindran – learned

¶50

counsel for the petitioners, requested that his

¶51

clients be given liberty to move the Sale
Officers with their objections, so that the
matter can then be decided by the said
Authority.

¶52

appearing for the respondent - Bank in both
these cases, did not oppose the afore request;
however, praying that strict time frames be
fixed.

¶53

In the afore circumstances, I dispose of

¶54

these Writ Petitions with the following

¶55

directions:

¶56

(a) The petitioners in these matters are

¶57

given liberty to move the respective Sale
Officers, raising their objections against the
calculation of the amounts shown due from them

¶58

under the Awards; and if this is done within a

¶59

WP(C)Nos.4746 & 6986/2023

¶60

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment, the same shall be
considered by the said Authority, subject to his
jurisdiction in the matter, after affording
necessary opportunities to both sides; thus
culminating in an appropriate order and
necessary action thereon, within a period of two
weeks thereafter.

¶61

(b) On the afore being done - and subject to
the further rights of the petitioners, the Sale
Officers will be at full liberty to continue
further proceedings for recovery as per law,
following due procedure.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶64

JUDGE

¶65

akv

¶66

WP(C)Nos.4746 & 6986/2023

¶67

-7-

¶68

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6986/2023

¶69

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶70

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPIES OF THE PASS BOOK`
	`NO.5000251 OF THE OVER-DRAFT LOAN` `AVAILED BY THE PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SUB-RULE OF OVER-` `DRAFT APPROVED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR` `OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)` `THRISSUR`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION` `PETITION (OD 5/251/10.11) FILED BY THE` `4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.12804/15` `DATED 29/05/2018 OF THE ARBITRATOR`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED` `16/05/2022 (E.P.NO.2210/19)`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.30/2007` `DATED 03/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE` `REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`

¶71

WP(C)Nos.4746 & 6986/2023

¶72

-8-

¶73

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4746/2023

¶74

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶75

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`PASS BOOK O`	`F THE`
	`OVER-DRAFT LOAN` `PETITIONER`	`AVAILED BY`	`THE`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DRAFT APPROVED BY` `OF CO-OPERATIVE S` `THRISSUR.`	`SUB RULE OF` `THE JOINT REG` `OCIETIES (GE`	`OVER-` `ISTRAR` `NERAL)`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `PETITION FILED BY` `BEFORE` `THE` `(NO.5/252/10-11)`	`THE ARBIT` `THE 4TH RESP` `2ND` `RESP`	`RATION` `ONDENT` `ONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF TH` `DATED 29/05/2018 OF`	`E AWARD NO.12` `THE ARBITRATO`	`805/15` `R`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `16/05/2022` `(E.P.` `12805/15)`	`DEMAND NOTICE` `NO.2211/19)`	`DATED` `(ARC`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 03/05/2007` `REGISTRAR OF CO-O` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`	`CIRCULAR NO.3` `ISSUED BY` `PERATIVE SOCI`	`0/2007` `THE` `ETIES,`

Jaffar P.E v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaffar P.E v. the Manager

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

Kunjuraman Pillai Vs Union of India

Rose Ophthalmic Industries Pvt, Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

G Srinivasan Vs State of Kerala

Fasna C. K. Vs Commissioner for Government Examinations

Sajeena Vs Union of India

The Secretary Kuttipuram Grama Panchayath Vs State of Kerala