IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14143 of 2009(K)
1. S.RAVINDRANATHA WARRIER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL,
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
4. THE KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.14143 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P2 and
P10 and to direct the respondents not to take further
proceedings pursuant to the impleadment of the petitioner
in the arbitration proceedings.
2. The petitioner’s wife was the Manager of the
Ettumanoor Branch of the 4th respondent. In August 2003,
she was placed under suspension, on allegation of
misconducts and the arbitration was also raised by the
Bank against the petitioner’s wife. At that stage, by Ext.P1
agreement executed by the petitioner in favour of the Bank,
he undertook to make good the dues which the petitioner’s
wife owned to the Bank. Accordingly, petitioner was made a
party to arbitration proceedings and by, by Ext.P2, the 2nd
respondent authorized attachment of the petitioner’s
WP(c).No.14143/09 2
property. Ext.P3 objection was filed by the petitioner before
the 2nd respondent and this court in Ext.P4 judgment in WP(c).
No.30178/04 filed by the petitioner, directed consideration of
the objections. Accordingly, objections were considered and
by Ext.P5 the 2nd respondent declined to lift the order of
attachment.
3. Ext.P5 order was called in question before this court
in WP(c).No.1208/05. That writ petition was disposed of by
Ext.P6 judgment relegating the petitioner to seek appellate
remedy. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before
the first respondent, which again was directed to be
considered as per Ext.P8 judgment rendered by this court in
WP(c).No.29918/05 filed by the petitioner. The appeal was
heard and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by Ext.P10 order.
It is in these circumstances this writ petition is filed.
4. The contention raised before me is that the Arbitrator
has no power to implead a stranger to the proceedings and
pass an order of attachment before judgment. According to
WP(c).No.14143/09 3
the Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any
clear statutory provision conferring power in this behalf, the
Arbitrator could not have passed Ext.P2 order. The
contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is clearly
answered by the Division Bench of this court in Thankam R.
Pillai V. Arbitrator(1996(1)KLT 225), where it has been held as
follows;
“All powers which are not specifically denied by
the statute or the statutory rules should be
vouchsafed to a Tribunal so that it may
effectively exercise its judicial function. A
Tribunal in its wider connotation, embraced
every adjudicatory organ including an Arbitrator.
A “Tribunal” literally means a seat of justice. May
be, justice is dispensed by a quasi-judicial body,
an arbitrator, a commission, a court or other
adjudicatory organ created by the State. The
Arbitrator functioning under the Act is a quasi-
WP(c).No.14143/09 4
judicial adjudicatory body falling within the term
” tribunal”
5. Following this judgment, in Paul V. Asst. Registrar
(1998(2)KLT 449), a learned judge of this court has also held
that the preposition that emerges from the above decision is
that all the powers which are not specifically denied by the
statute or the statutory rules should be vouchsafed to a
Tribunal.
In view of the above decision I see no reason to interfere
with the order impugned. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.14143/09 5