IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22728 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.AVARA HAJI, S/O.KUNHAMMED HAJI, KOTTUKAANDAN HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM (VIA), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE ARIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1566, KOTTAPPADAM, MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF ARIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.F.1566, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KOTTAPPADAM, MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22728 OF 2009 (I) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P11, the judgment rendered by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal No.17/04. 2. Petitioner's case is that he had entrusted Rs.2 lakhs with the Secretary of the 2nd respondent Bank for depositing in the Bank. It is stated that when the petitioner demanded refund of the amount, as the amount was misappropriated, the President arranged from the Bank a loan of Rs.3 lakhs with the specific understanding that he need repay only Rs.1 lakh. It is stated that default was committed resulting in Ext.P5 award rendered by the Arbitrator in ARC 1030/03 filed by the Bank. An appeal was filed before the Tribunal and that was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment modifying the award. 3. Ext.P7 judgment was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.11604/05 resulting in Ext.P10 judgment quashing Ext.P7 and directing reconsideration of the matter. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and by Ext.P11, judgment has been WPC 22728/09 :2 : rendered by the Tribunal modifying the award reducing the interest to 12% and allowing instalments. It is challenging the judgment, this writ petition is filed 4. In this writ petition, it is admitted that petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.3 lakhs. Therefore even if any officer or any other official of the Bank had committed misappropriation as alleged by the petitioner, apart from the fact that it may give rise to a cause of action for the petitioner to proceed against the person who misappropriated the money, petitioner cannot say that his liability to the Bank should stand proportionately reduced. If so, necessarily, the petitioner should discharge the loan liability and therefore the finding of the Arbitrator and the Tribunal cannot be faulted. 5. It is then contended by the counsel for the petitioner that certain payments made by him during the pendency of the proceedings have not been given credit. I have no reason to think that if as a matter of fact, petitioner has made any payments, the Bank will not give credit to such payments. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the Bank about the payments made, and if so, there is no reason why the petitioner should not get credit for WPC 22728/09 :3 : the same. 6. On the whole, I do not see any reason for interfering with Ext.P11. 7. In so far as the prayer made for One Time Settlement Scheme is concerned, that is a matter for the petitioner to pursue and is left open. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp