Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

K.K.Karnan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 6 June, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                             PRESENT:

                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

             WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/5TH CHAITHRA, 1936

                                    WP(C).No. 31334 of 2013 (N)
                                       ----------------------------

PETITIONER :
--------------------------

            K.K.KARNAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,
            KURUVANPADATH HOUSE, PROPRIETOR,
            S.N.RICE MILL, OKKAL, KALADY,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
                          SRI.K.N.AJAYAN
                          SRI.K.S.ARUNDAS

RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------

        1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G),
            TRISSUR - PIN -680 001

        2. PARAPPOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, LTD.NO.474,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARPPOOR P.O., THRISSUR,
            PIN -680 552

            R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH
            R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN


            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
            ON 26-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
            THE FOLLOWING:




sts

WP(C).No. 31334 of 2013 (N)
-----------------------------------------

                                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------

EXT.P-1:             A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.6.2007 OF THE PETITIONER
                     SEND TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT

EXT.P-2:             A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BEFORE THE FIRST
                     RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2013

EXT.P-3:             A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED BY THE
                     COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

EXT.P-4:             A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 10.9.2013 FILED
                     BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR WITHOUT ANNEXURES

EXT.P-5:             A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 4.9.2013 PASSED BY THE
                     SECOND RESPONDENT.




RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:                    NIL




                                                     /TRUE COPY/


                                                     P.A.TO.JUDGE




sts



                K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
      - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
               W.P(C) No. 31334 of 2013
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Dated this the 26th day of March, 2014


                      J U D G M E N T

The petitioner had availed of a loan from the 2nd respondent society and admittedly there was default committed. The 2nd respondent Society, to enable recovery of amounts, filed arbitration case before the Joint Registrar (General) as evidenced by Ext.P2. The petitioner is now aggrieved by the award passed as per Ext.P5. The petitioner's only contention is that the award was passed ex-parte, only for reason of the non-appearance of the petitioner and his Counsel. The Counsel has also filed an affidavit before the Joint Registrar (General), evidenced by Ext.P3 wherein it is stated that though he intended to appear on the said day, he was WPC.31334/2013 : 2 : delayed insofar as there was a strike in protest against the price hike of fuel. It was only in such circumstance that the Counsel could not reach in time before the Joint Registrar (General). The application is seen to have been filed immediately thereafter on 04.09.2013.

2. The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, however, would contend that this a case in which huge amounts are due, to the 2nd respondent Bank and that the petitioner has not cared to pay a single pie in all these years. It is also contended that the present proceedings also, is a dilatory tactic and in any event, the petitioner ought to have availed of the statutory remedy of appeal rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. However, looking at Ext.P5 order it is WPC.31334/2013 : 3 : seen that the case was first posted on 12.06.2013, on which date the petitioner appeared through his Counsel. On the next posting date, on 10.07.2013, there was no sitting and the case stood adjourned to 04.09.2013. On 04.09.2013 due to the aforementioned absence of the Counsel, the Joint Registrar thought it fit to set ex-parte the respondent in the ARC and also passed an order on the very same day.

4. Though it was urged by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that Exts.P3 and P4 order may be directed to be considered, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P5 is to be set aside and the matter has to be reconsidered. The petitioner or his counsel and the representatives of the respondent Bank shall appear before the Joint Registrar (General) on WPC.31334/2013 : 4 : 23.04.2014. The Joint Registrar (General) shall give an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence and shall conclude the matter, at any rate, within a period of six months thereafter.

Writ petition allowed without any order as to costs.

Sd/-

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge