Disposed

E.B.Premanathan Nair v. Assistant Registrar(General)

Kerala HC21 Feb 2024WP(C)/4786/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged dismissal of applications seeking handwriting verification of allegedly forged loan documents in arbitration under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The court held such defences may be raised before the Arbitrator, set aside the dismissal order, and directed fresh orders on the applications.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order set aside; Arbitrator directed to pass fresh orders on Exts.P3 and P4 within one month; petitioner to bear verification costs.

E.B.Premanathan Nair Vs Assistant Registrar(General) — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4786 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

E.B.PREMANATHAN NAIR AGED 59 YEARS SON OF BHASKARAN NAIR, ETHENKUDY HOUSE, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM P.O., PIN 686 670

¶8

BY ADVS. S.VINOD BHAT KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN SMT.GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KUNNATHUNAD, PERUMBAVOOR 683 542.

¶11

2 SENTHIL KUMAR

¶12

AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.PANDYAN NAIR, SANTHI NIVAS, VENGOLA KARA, ALLAPRA P.O., PIN 685 602.

¶13

3 SANTHA

¶14

AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.SENTHILKUMAR, SANTHI NIVAS, VENGOLA KARA, ALLAPRA P.O., PIN 685 602.

¶15

4 MANAGER THE KUNNATHUNADU TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.E982, PERUMBAVOOR 683 542.

¶16

5 SUNEESH KUMAR AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VISWAMBHARAN, ASWATHY HOUSE, COURT, ROAD, ALUVA 683 101

¶17

6 T.R.THOMAS, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.RAPHAEL, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 026.

¶18

W.P (C) No.4786/2021

¶19

-2-

¶20

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY SRI.E.S.FIROS

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SRI. DHEERAJ A S (GP)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P (C) No.4786/2021

-3-

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that Exts.P3 and P4 applications filed by the petitioner for sending the signature on disputed documents for handwriting verification and for production of certain documents has been dismissed by the Arbitrator exercising jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is specific case of the petitioner that the so called loan documents are forged and that the petitioner had not signed any loan documents. It is pointed out that in Ext.P2 judgment this court had already observed as follows and had disposed of the writ petition in the following manner:-

¶28

“6. As noticed supra, the issue involved viz. regarding the liability of the petitioners, necessarily involves a finding on the genuineness of the loan documents. It is a matter to be adjudicated under Section 69 on taking evidence. I deem it appropriate that the proceedings under Section 69 initiated by the petitioners as File No.484/2014 be re-opened and restored and the issue be adjudicated in the said proceedings. This needs to be done independent of any findings or observations in the order of the Joint Registrar dated 04.11.2019.

¶29

7. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of as follows:-

¶30

(i) File No.484/2014 before the Assistant Registrar (General), Kunnathunadu, Perumbavur, will stand re-opened and restored.

¶31

(ii) Fresh notice of appearance shall be issued to the parties in proceedings in File No.484/2014.

¶32

(iii) Both sides shall be afforded opportunity to adduce evidence in the proceedings in File No.484/2014.

¶33

(iv) The proceedings in File No.484/2014 shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months

¶34

-4-

¶35

W.P (C) No.4786/2021

¶36

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

(v) Further proceedings for recovery of amounts allegedly due from the petitioners under the loan account in question shall stand deferred till final orders are passed in File No.484/2014.”

¶38

It is submitted that in such circumstances the Arbitrator could not have dismiss Exts.P3 and P4 applications filed by the petitioner.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent bank vehementally opposes any grant of relief to the petitioner. It is submitted that it is clear that the petitioner is only trying to delay the proceedings in one way or the other. It is submitted that the contention taken on behalf of the petitioner that the loan documents are forged is absolutely incorrect and after having availed and utilized the loan amount it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that the loan documents are forged documents.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent and the learned Government Pleader I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. This court while disposing of W.P (C) No.14013/2020 through Ext.P2 judgment had already found that both sides should be given proper opportunity for adducing evidence. If the petitioner has a case that the loan documents are forged it is open to the petitioner to request that the documents be send for examination by an expert. The proceedings before the Arbitrator under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is to the exclusion of the jurisdiction

¶41

W.P (C) No.4786/2021

¶42

-5-

¶43

of the civil court. Therefore it must be held that any claim in defence that could be raised before the civil court can also be raised in proceedings before the Arbitrator. Therefore Ext.P5 order is set aside. The Arbitrator shall pass fresh orders on Exts.P3 and P4 taking note of the above observations within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the cost of sending any documents for verification shall be met by the petitioner. The Arbitrator shall ensure that the proceedings before him are concluded without delay.

¶44

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

AMG

W.P (C) No.4786/2021

-6-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4786/2021

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT	P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (ARC 484/2014)
EXHIBIT	P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.8.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.14013/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT	P3 COPY OF PETITION I.A.1/2021 IN ARC 484/2014 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P4 COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.3/2021 IN ARC 484/2014 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT	P5 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER DATED NIL OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

E.B.Premanathan Nair v. Assistant Registrar(General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.B.Premanathan Nair v. Assistant Registrar(General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chummaru, S/O Varghese Vs N S K Umesh Ias, the District Collector

Mr. Ajithkumar M. Vs Life Insurance Corporation Ltd.

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Mr.Ajith Kumar M.

Ambily Jo Vs Jo Augustin

K.Devadasan, Vs the Director

Sadasivan Pillai Vs the Federal Bank Limited