IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21338 of 2009(J)
1. RAHEL ABRAHAM,W/O. ABRAHAM, ELAVUMKUDY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.O. JOSE, S/O. OUSEPH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.DILIP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :29/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.21338 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner had availed of a loan from the
Kothamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., to which
respondent herein stood as a surety. Default was
committed. Bank filed ARC.No.550/02 for realization of the
amount. An ex-parte award was passed and pursuant to
which, the respondent being the surety, discharged the
liability.
2. Thereafter respondent filed ARC. No.322/04
against the petitioner for realising the amount paid by him.
Ext.P1 is the copy of the ARC and Ext.P2 is the written
statement filed by the petitioner. One of the objections
raised by the petitioner was that the ARC is not
maintainable and that the remedy of the respondent is to
file a civil suit to realise the amount. However, over ruling
WP(c).No.21338/09 2
the objections Ext.P3 award was passed.
3. Against the award passed, petitioner filed Revision
petition No.42/07 before the Arbitration Tribunal and that
was dismissed by Ext.P4 order. It is challenging Exts.P2 and P4
referred to above, the writ petition is filed.
4. I am not impressed by the contention raised by the
petitioner that the ARC was not maintainable. Section 69 of
the Act provides that, dispute of any nature defined in the Act
shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Board
constituted under Section 70A of the Act. It is provided that in
the case of monetary disputes, the Arbitration Court shall
decide such disputes and no court or other authority shall
have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in
respect of such dispute. Sub Section 2(b) of Section 69 of the
Act provides that a claim by a surety against the principal
debtor, where the society has recovered from the surety any
amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the
principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal
WP(c).No.21338/09 3
debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not shall
also be deemed to be a dispute.
5. Although it is the case of the counsel for the
petitioner that in terms of Section 2(i) of the Act, dispute
means any matter touching the business, constitution,
establishments or management of a society and that the
dispute which is the subject matter of the ARC filed by the
respondent does not come within the scope of Section 2(i),
having regard to the provisions contained in Section 69 and
particularly sub Section 2(b) referred to above, I do not think
that the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner
has any force. In my view, the ARC filed by the respondent is
perfectly maintainable and Ext.P3 award and the order of the
Tribunal confirming the same do not warrant any interference.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.21338/09 4