{"id":267225,"date":"2007-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007"},"modified":"2014-02-04T11:13:15","modified_gmt":"2014-02-04T05:43:15","slug":"aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA No. 2178 of 2007()\n\n\n1. AYMANAM MARIYATHURUTHY SERVICE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. M.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,POITHITTAYIL\n\n3. SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :19\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                      H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.\n             ...................................................................................\n                                 W.A. No. 2178 OF 2007\n             ...................................................................................\n                        Dated this the 19th September, 2007\n\n                                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
H.L. Dattu, C.J.:\n<\/p>\n
\n
       The petitioner\/appellant is a society registered under the provisions of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).<\/p>\n
       2. In this appeal, the petitioner\/appellant questions the correctness or<\/p>\n
otherwise of the orders passed by the learned single Judge in O.P. No.23823<\/p>\n
of 2002 dated 26th March, 2007. The learned single Judge has rejected the<\/p>\n
Original Petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the<\/p>\n
present appeal is filed.\n<\/p>\n
       3.   The Appellant had raised a dispute before the Arbitrator under the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 69 (1) of the Act.                       The Arbitrator, by               order dated<\/p>\n
21.10.1999 had rejected the dispute. The order passed by the Arbitrator reads<\/p>\n
as under:\n<\/p>\n
            “Advocate Abraham K. Jacob appeared for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
            The trial commenced from 05.01.1991 onwards. Since<\/p>\n
            the records were in the Vigilance Court, the trial could not<\/p>\n
            be commenced till 15.06.1998. The trial was conducted<\/p>\n
            on various days during the period from 03.03.1999 to<\/p>\n
            21.10.1999.          Exhibit P1 to P67 were marked.                            As the<\/p>\n
            petitioner Bank could not establish that the respondent<\/p>\n
            was responsible for the incident which is the subject<\/p>\n
            matter of the case, the above case is                               dismissed on<\/p>\n
            21.10.1999 at 3 p.m.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       4.     Aggrieved by the                   order passed by the Arbitrator, the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/appellant-Society had filed Appeal No. 32 of 2000 before the Kerala<\/p>\n
W.A. No. 2178 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
Co-operative Tribunal,     Thiruvananthapuram. By order dated 10th October,<\/p>\n
2000, the Tribunal has rejected the appeal for non-prosecution. The order<\/p>\n
passed by the Tribunal reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
              “Appellant called. Absent.     No representation even.<\/p>\n
              Hence dismissed for default.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       5.     After the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/appellant-Society had filed an application for restoration of the<\/p>\n
appeal, viz., Restoration Application No.55 of 2000. The said application has<\/p>\n
also been rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 6th August, 2001, for non-<\/p>\n
prosecution. The order passed by the Tribunal reads as under:<\/p>\n
             “No representation for the petitioner.         Hence<\/p>\n
             petitioner called. Petitioner also is absent.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     In the result I dismiss this Restoration<\/p>\n
             Application for default. No costs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       6.   Thereafter the     petitioner\/appellant-Society had filed one more<\/p>\n
application for restoration of dismissed application, in Restoration Application<\/p>\n
No.85 of 2001. The said application has also been rejected by the Tribunal by<\/p>\n
its order dated 10th September, 2001. The order passed by the Tribunal is as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
            “This is restoration application filed on second time<\/p>\n
            in A.P.No. 32\/2000.         The appeal was being<\/p>\n
            dismissed for default on 10.10.2000 and notice<\/p>\n
            12.12.2000 as averred in the affidavit Restoration<\/p>\n
W.A. No. 2178 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
             Application 55\/2000 filed on 08.11.2000 was also<\/p>\n
             being dismissed for default     on 06.08.2001.    This<\/p>\n
             application is filed to restore Restoration Application<\/p>\n
             55\/2000. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that<\/p>\n
             the appellant\/petitioner was not at all    diligent  in<\/p>\n
             prosecuting the appeal and only wanted to due that<\/p>\n
             the Appeal on an application for restoration atleast is<\/p>\n
             kept pending on file. I am not of the view that the<\/p>\n
             culpable latches on the part of the appellant and his<\/p>\n
             lawyer can be taken lightly so as to allow this<\/p>\n
             application   for   restoration  of  the   Restoration<\/p>\n
             Application.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    In the result, I dismiss this Restoration<\/p>\n
             Application with however no order as to costs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       7.    Aggrieved by the aforesaid order      passed by the Tribunal, the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/appellant-Society was before this court in O.P. 23823 of 2002 and<\/p>\n
the said Original Petition is rejected by the learned Single Judge by his order<\/p>\n
dated 26.3.2007.\n<\/p>\n
       8.    The learned counsel for the petitioner\/appellant-Society would<\/p>\n
submit, the learned single Judge was not justified in rejecting the Original<\/p>\n
Petition filed by the Society on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the learned counsel requests us to interfere with the said order<\/p>\n
passed by the learned single Judge and to remand the matter to the Tribunal<\/p>\n
to restore the appeal filed by the petitioner\/appellant-Society and to decide the<\/p>\n
same on merits by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
W.A. No. 2178 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
       9. We are not inclined to accede the request made by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner\/appellant-Society.<\/p>\n
       10.   Rule 113 of the Kerala Co-operative         Societies Rules   1969<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as ‘ Rules’) provides for rejection of an appeal by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal ex parte. Rule 114 of the Rules provides for filing of an application<\/p>\n
for restoration of the appeal dismissed for default\/non-prosecution and for<\/p>\n
restoration of the appeal, if for any reason, the Tribunal is satisfied with the<\/p>\n
explanation offered in the application for restoration.   The relevant rules are<\/p>\n
extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
       “113. Hearing:-(1) Where on the date fixed for hearing or on<\/p>\n
       any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, any<\/p>\n
       party does not appear when the proceedings is called on for<\/p>\n
       hearing , the Tribunal may dispose of the proceedings ex-<\/p>\n
       parte.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (2) On the date fixed for hearing or on any other date to which<\/p>\n
       the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant or applicant shall<\/p>\n
       ordinarily be heard first in support of the appeal or application.<\/p>\n
       The respondent, if necessary, shall be heard next and in such<\/p>\n
       a case the party beginning shall be entitled to reply.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       114. Restoration of appeals and applications:-(1) Where a<\/p>\n
       principal application is disposed of ex-parte any absentee<\/p>\n
       party, if aggrieved, may apply to the Tribunal, within 30 days<\/p>\n
       from the date of communication of the order, for restoring<\/p>\n
       such proceeding to the file and       where it is shown to the<\/p>\n
       satisfaction of the Tribunal that he was prevented by sufficient<\/p>\n
       cause from appearing when the proceeding was called on for<\/p>\n
       hearing, the Tribunal shall restore the same and proceed with<\/p>\n
W.A. No. 2178 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
        it. Provided that where the other party had appeared at the<\/p>\n
        hearing such party shall be given notice and an opportunity of<\/p>\n
        being heard before the order for restoration of the appeal or<\/p>\n
        application is made.\n<\/p>\n
        (2)    The provisions of these rules relating to appeals or<\/p>\n
        applications shall mutatis mutandis apply to application for<\/p>\n
        restoration. ”\n<\/p>\n
        11. In the instant case, since the petitioner\/appellant-Society was not<\/p>\n
present before the Tribunal when the matter was called for hearing, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, in exercise of its powers under Rules 113 of the Rules, has rejected<\/p>\n
the appeal. Rule 114 of the Rules authorises the appellant, whose appeal was<\/p>\n
rejected for non-prosecution\/default, to make an application for restoration of<\/p>\n
the appeal. The said rule also authorises the Tribunal to restore the appeal, if<\/p>\n
the Tribunal is satisfied with the reason that the appellant was prevented by<\/p>\n
sufficient cause from appearing when the proceeding was called for hearing.<\/p>\n
        12. The appeal filed by the petitioner society is posted before this court<\/p>\n
for admission.    We asked the learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
Society to furnish us the application filed by the petitioner society to satisfy<\/p>\n
ourselves whether the petitioner society has made out sufficient grounds for<\/p>\n
restoration of the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant pleads his<\/p>\n
inability to produce that application.\n<\/p>\n
        13. In the instant case, as we have already noticed, that on the date<\/p>\n
when the matter was posted for hearing before the Tribunal, neither the<\/p>\n
appellant nor its counsel was present before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in<\/p>\n
W.A. No. 2178 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
exercise of its powers under Rules 113 of the Rules has rejected the appeal<\/p>\n
for non-prosecution\/default. The said appeal could have been restored by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, if reasonable explanation was shown by the appellant            in the<\/p>\n
application filed for restoration of the appeal. Whether sufficient cause has<\/p>\n
been shown or not in the application for restoration, to the satisfaction of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal for the absence of the appellant at the time when the proceeding was<\/p>\n
called for hearing, can be ascertained only if the application for restoration<\/p>\n
filed before the Tribunal is produced before us. Since that application is not<\/p>\n
filed\/produced before us, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in<\/p>\n
rejecting not only the appeal but also the application for restoration of the<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        11. In view of the above, for the reasons other than the reasons<\/p>\n
mentioned by the learned single Judge, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected<\/p>\n
and it is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                     H.L. DATTU,
\n                                                   CHIEF JUSTICE.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                   K.T. SANKARAN,
\n                                                         JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
lk\/DK.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA No. 2178 of 2007() 1. AYMANAM MARIYATHURUTHY SERVICE … Petitioner Vs 1. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL … Respondent 2. M.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,POITHITTAYIL 3. SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR For Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-267225","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-04T05:43:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-04T05:43:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1344,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-04T05:43:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-04T05:43:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-04T05:43:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007"},"wordCount":1344,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007","name":"Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-04T05:43:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aymanam-mariyathuruthy-service-vs-the-kerala-co-operative-tribunal-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aymanam Mariyathuruthy Service vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal on 19 September, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=267225"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267225\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}