IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23634 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. K.V.KURIAN, ACCOUNTANT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 3. MATHEW KANIYAMPADICAL, BRANCH MANAGER (RTD.), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SC,KOTTAYAM DIST.COOP.BAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KANJIRAPPALLY CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANJIRAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. FAZILY P.S.THANDIYIL (PULIMOOTTIL), ERICADU, KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. PONNAMMA, W/O.ANIYANKUNJU, THEKKUMKOOTTATHIL, KUMBAZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. ANOOP (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY R3. 5. ARUN (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.23634 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Exts.P3 & P4 are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Ext.P3 is an award passed by the Arbitrator, which has been confirmed in Ext.P4 judgment of the Tribunal. The facts of the case are that the 1st respondent filed Ext.P1 plaint, which was registered as ARC No.353/2002, in which Ext.P2 written statement was filed by the petitioners. Allegation in Ext.P1, in a nut shell, is that when a cheque was presented in the 1st respondent Bank by a customer that was sent to the 1st petitioner's branch for collection. It was stated that consistent with the usual practice, the Officers of the 1st petitioner issued a transfer slip signifying that there is sufficient amount available in the account of the drawer of the cheque and that acting upon the transfer slip, the 1st respondent released payment to the holder of the cheque. It is stated that subsequently, the 1st petitioner took a stand that there was no fund available in the account of the drawer of the cheque, and therefore, WP(C) No.23634/2009 -2- the cheque was to be dishonourned. It is stated that in that process, the 1st respondent suffered loss and a plaint was filed to recover the said loss. 3. After considering the evidence, which fully supported with the plaintiff's case, the Arbitrator rendered Ext.P3 award in favour of the 1st respondent. A reading of paragraph 15 to 20 of Ext.P3 show that entire oral evidence has been discussed by the Arbitrator. It is also stated that DWs 1 and 2, who were tendered evidence on behalf of the defendant, in the arbitration also, have tendered evidence consistent with the case of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the award was rendered, and that was confirmed in Ext.P4 judgment of the Tribunal. 4. I have gone through Exts.P3 & P4, and satisfied that there is absolutely nothing arbitrary or perverse findings either by the Arbitrator or the Tribunal warranting interference in this writ petition. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg