IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36724 of 2008(V)
1. K.A.BABU, KUNDIL VEEDU,,P.O.PULLOOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PULLOOR SERVICE CO.OP.BANK,
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO.OP.SOCIETIES
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 36724 OF 2008 (V)
=====================
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims that he was a salesman appointed under
the 1st respondent Bank. On the ground that there was shortage
of stock of Rs.3,19,204/-, proceedings were initiated against him
and finally, he was terminated from service. That dispute is now
pending before the Co-operative Arbitration Court as ARC
No.195/08.
2. Meanwhile, the Bank instituted ARC No.6926/04 before
the Registrar for realisation of Rs.3,19,204, being the value of the
stock found short and also ARC No.3429/07 to recover
Rs.3,72,724/- allegedly the loan arrears due from the petitioner.
In this writ petition, what the petitioner submits is that since the
subject matter of the aforesaid three proceedings are connected,
it is necessary that all the three proceedings should be
consolidated, tried and disposed of by one authority.
3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
12/12/2008 calling upon the Bank to state its objections if any on
the prayer made, the Bank has filed a counter affidavit. According
WPC 36724/08
:2 :
to the Bank, in so far as ARC No.6926/04 is concerned, the
petitioner in his letter dated 13/8/04 admitted the liability and
sought time for payment. It is stated that liability of the petitioner
is totally independent and separate from the subject matter of
ARC No.195/08 and therefore there is absolutely no reason to
consolidate that proceedings along with the proceedings in ARC
No.195/08 pending before the Co-operative Arbitration Court.
4. In so far as ARC NO.3429/07 is concerned, according to
the Bank, the said proceedings have been initiated for realisation
of the loan dues. However,this case of the Bank is disputed by
the counsel for the petitioner contending that the amount that is
sought to be realised is the amount towards the credit sales
effected by the petitioner.
5. The Bank would also submit that in terms of Section 69
(h) of the Act, monetary disputes are exclusively within the
purview of the Registrar and in so far as non-monetary disputes
are concerned, such disputes are to be tried by the Co-operative
Arbitration Court. It is contended that since the legislature has
conferred such exclusive jurisdiction on the respective authorities,
this Court will not be justified in passing orders contrary to the
WPC 36724/08
:3 :
legislative mandate.
6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides.
7. Section 69(h) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act
provides that non-monetary disputes shall be exclusively tried by
Co-operative Arbitration Court while the monetary disputes are to
be tried by the Registrar. This Section also provides that no other
court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain such claims.
Therefore, the legislature, having conferred exclusive jurisdiction
on the Court and the Arbitrator as the case may be, this Court will
not be justified in passing orders which will run counter to the
clear legislative mandate. Therefore, the clubbing of the disputes
as sought for by the petitioner will be against the provisions of
Section 69(h) of the Act.
8. Of the three proceedings that are pending, the
petitioner can at best say that the proceedings in ARC
No.6926/04 where the Bank is seeking to realise the value of the
stock found short, is related to the proceedings in ARC No.195/08
pending before the Arbitration Court. In view of the provisions in
Section 69(h) of the Act, it is not possible to club these cases.
However, I also do not think it necessary or proper to direct that
WPC 36724/08
:4 :
proceedings before the Arbitrator should be kept pending until the
proceedings before the Arbitration court is finalised. Even if both
the proceedings are allowed to continue before the respective
Courts, I do not think that can cause any prejudice to the
petitioner for the reason that each of the forums will have to
adjudicate the case before it on the materials that are available
before them. Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity to keep
the arbitration case before the Arbitrator pending until the
Arbitration Court decides ARC No.195/08 as sought for by the
petitioner. However, it is directed that if award favourable to the
Bank is passed in ARC No.6926/04, its implementation shall be
kept in abeyance until the Arbitration Court finalises the
proceedings in ARC No.195/08.
9. As already stated, the proceedings in ARC No.3429/07
is, according to the Bank, for realisation of the loan dues from the
petitioner. Petitioner submits that this amount represents the
advance that the Bank gave for running the store. This certainly is
a matter for the Arbitrator to decide. In any case, the subject
matter of the dispute cannot be related to the subject matter of
ARC No.195/08 and proceedings in one, cannot cause prejudice in
WPC 36724/08
:5 :
the proceedings in the other. Therefore, I do not think it necessary
for passing any order as sought for by the petitioner in so far as
ARC No.3429/07 is concerned.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp