IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36107 of 2008(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SAROJINI AMMA, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMMOOTTILL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM. 3. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, KOLLAM. 4. SECRETARY, KALACODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, POOTHAKULAM, PARAVUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.36107 of 2008-W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Having regard to the nature of the orders being issued hereunder, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with preserving his right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. 3.The petitioner is the mother of one Omanamma who, going by this writ petition, died on 19-4-2003. Omanamma owed some amounts to the fourth respondent bank. She was the defendant in an arbitration proceedings. Unfortunately, the Sale Officer, who issued Ext.P1 on E.A.2742/04, has not even recorded the number of the arbitration WP(C)36107/08 -: 2 :- case. Yet, the petitioner appears to be well founded in saying that if the award was actually passed after the demise of her daughter Omanamma, without impleading any among the legal representatives of that person, the award is void. If there was any impleadment or if the award was passed before the death of Omanamma, it may be a case where the legal representatives would be entitled to notice of execution. Either way, the matter needs to be resolved. It was for such purpose that the petitioner made Ext.P2 representation before the first respondent. But, I am clear in my mind that such a representation will not, necessarily, result in an appropriate disposal of the issues in hand. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to make appearance either by herself or through an authorized person before the fourth respondent bank, Secretary of the bank, who will issue a copy of the award in relation to which, Ext.P1 has been issued. The petitioner will then be able to work out her remedies. If that award was passed after the WP(C)36107/08 -: 3 :- demise of Omanamma without any legal representatives being impleaded, the award will be treated as void and the appropriate arbitrator will re-open the proceedings, implead the petitioner and on her information, the other legal representatives will also be brought on record and the case considered and disposed of accordingly. If the award was passed after the demise of Omanamma, the petitioner will furnish the details to the Sale Officer regarding the identity of the legal representatives of Omanamma and notice will be issued to them. The bank will also consider the request of the petitioner to confine execution recovery by adjustment and take over of the liability under the award as against Omanamma's daughter Veena against whom there is an arbitration proceedings which has also culminated in award and is pending execution as stated in Ext.P2. To aid such process, all further proceedings against the property in the possession of the petitioner, i.e., one covered by Ext.P1, will stand suspended for a period of WP(C)36107/08 -: 4 :- four months or until completion of proceedings as stated above, whichever is later. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/121208