IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 1031 of 2008(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- T. LAKSHMANAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, CONTRACTOR, "SISIRAM", CHELORA, P.O. VARAM,KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN SRI.V.SUMESH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE KANHIRODE WEAVERS CO-OP. (P & S) SOCIETY LTD. NO.LL 44, P.O. KANHIRODE (VIA), KOODALI, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. THE ARBITRATOR (JUNIOR SUPERVISOR HL)-I, TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KANNUR. 3. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN BY SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR),SC BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1031/2008 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 1/07/2002. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 24/10/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.1031 of 2008-W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT “CR” 1.The first respondent obtained an arbitration award against the petitioner under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. The petitioner carried an appeal against it. The Co-operative Tribunal set aside the award holding that arbitration was not maintainable as the dispute between the parties was not one touching the business of the society. 2.However, in penultimate sentence of the impugned Ext.P2 order, the Tribunal stated as follows: “Since the plaintiff was under the belief that ARC is maintainable plaintiff can approach the civil court, within 30 WP(C)1031/2008 -: 2 :- days of receipt of a copy of the judgment.” 3.This writ petition is filed against the aforesaid statement of the Tribunal in Ext.P2. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal cannot fix any time limit and the prescription of 30 days for the plaintiff to approach the civil court is superfluous and without authority and jurisdiction. 5.The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that within the time limit stated in Ext.P2, a plaint has been presented. 6.The periods of limitation for suits are prescribed in the Limitation Act. Such time limit cannot be extended or curbed by the Tribunal. If the suit filed by the first respondent is within time, the same will be decided accordingly. Any benefit available to the plaintiff by virtue of the provisions of the Limitation Act providing for WP(C)1031/2008 -: 3 :- exclusion etc. would also be available as may be decided upon by the civil court, trying the suit. It is not within the domain of the Tribunal to authorize the institution of a civil suit within any period. The impugned provision in Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal, if understood to be one so, it runs against the mandate of law. 7.For the aforesaid reasons, the penultimate sentence in Ext.P2 is without authority. In the result, the same is quashed and the writ petition is allowed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to place all contentions before the competent authority. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/