Siby Sebastian vs The Co-Operative Arbitration … on 3 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 1164 of 2008(U)


1. SIBY SEBASTIAN, UTHUPPASSERIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ROMIO SEBASTIAN, MEMEBER NO. 7079,

3. ALEX GEORGE, MEMEBER NO. 5742,

4. T.J. KURIYAN, MEMEBER NO. 5851,

5. SURESH K, MEMEBER NO. 6928,KACHANOLICKAL

6. THOMAS THOMAS, MEMEBER NO. 9423,

7. G.RAMAKRISHNAN, MMEBER NO. 4658,

8. GEORGE VARKEY, (M.V. GEORGE),

9. MARIKUTTI GEORGE, MEMEBER NO., 3306,

10. CHANDRAN, KUTTIYANIKUDIYIL HOUSE,

11. THANKAMONY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK

12. THE RETURNING OFFICER, C UNIT INSPECTOR,

13. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT

14. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION

15. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

16. UDAYAGIRI SERVICE CO-OPERAIVE BANK,

17. MARIYAPURAM SERVICE  CO-OPERATIVE

18. SANTHIGRAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :03/11/2008

 O R D E R
          THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                  -------------------------
                  R.P.No.1164 of 2008
                               in
               W.P.(C.) No. 29369 of 2008
              ---------------------------------
       Dated, this the 3rd day of November, 2008

                         O R D E R

Perused the judgment sought to be reviewed. Heard.

2. The petitioner filed an election dispute before the

1st respondent, the Co-operative Arbitration Court. His

complaint was that there was delay in disposing of that

case. The judgment was, therefore, dictated directing the

Tribunal to expedite the disposal of the matter. But,

unfortunately, there has been some mixing up of files, and

what has come out as judgment in this case is something

that was dictated in some other case. The impugned

judgment is, accordingly, reviewed and recalled.

The review petition is allowed as above.

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
jg