IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 273 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32914/2009 Dated 17/11/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- R.KUPPUSWAMY, INTUC OFFICE, NALLATHANNI ROAD, MUNNAR, MUNNAR.P.O. BY ADVS. MR.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, MR.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DEVIKULAM TALUK PLANTATION WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.NO.K.382, DEVIKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY. 2. CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ARBITRATOR/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), DEVIKULAM, MUNNAR. R2 & R3 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A.No.273 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner is a former President of the first respondent co-operative society. On the allegation that he had made certain over-drawals, a complaint was filed for arbitration under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. That was signed by a person as the Secretary. However, that individual stood disqualified at that point of time and continues to be so, to hold the post of the Secretary. The Arbitrator dismissed that suit and left open the right of the society to sue afresh. The ground of rejection of the suit was that it was not instituted by the properly authorised person in terms of the bye-laws of the society. The society WA273/10 -: 2 :- came forward and it filed an appeal to the State Co-operative Tribunal through its Secretary. The authority of that person to institute the appeal before the Tribunal on behalf of the society is not disputed. The society was really the appellant before the Tribunal. In terms of Section 9 of the KCS Act, a co- operative society is a body corporate with a common seal and perpetual succession with right to institute and defend actions, as also to enter into contracts etc. It is a juristic person. The society is the party to the litigation. The society having taken upon the responsibility to own up the litigation instituted before the Arbitrator by filing an appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator, we do not find any legal infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal in having remitted the matter for reconsideration by vacating the decision of the Arbitrator and holding that the defect was a curable one. The Secretary now in office could be substituted as WA273/10 -: 3 :- the duly authorised person on behalf of the society to prosecute the application instituted before the Arbitrator. In this view of the matter, without going into the controversies raised in the writ petition and answered by the learned single Judge, we find no error of jurisdiction or legal infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or injustice in the impugned judgment. The writ appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. Sha/0203