IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20749 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE KUTTAMPEROOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.611, KUTTAMPEROOR P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.NISHIL.P.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.MANOJ, KAKKETHU THEKKETHIL, LALITHA NIVAS, KUTTAMPEROOR P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE ARBITRATOR, INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHENGANNUR UNIT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.20749 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The first respondent was working as an Attender inu the Petitioner Bank. It was alleged that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,97,938/-. Disciplinary proceedings resulted in his dismissal and a criminal case is said to be pending. In order to recoup the alleged loss suffered, petitioner Bank filed ARC. No.37/05 and Ext.P2 is the plaint. 2. The first respondent contested the matter and notice was issued to both sides and Ext.P3 award was rendered by the Arbitrator. In Ext.P3, the Arbitrator dismissed the claim and exonerated the first respondent. It is seen from Ext.P3 itself that, after substantial progress has been made before the Arbitrator, the Bank applied for forwarding certain documents for expert opinion, which was rejected by the Arbitrator, as by then evidence was completed and there was no allegation in the pliant that the first respondent had forged the signature. Further, the WP(c).No.20749/09 2 Bank Manager had also deposed that he was satisfied that the signature on the cheque was genuine was also taken into account. Proceeding further the Arbitrator held that, there was nothing to indicate that the first respondent was holding the charge of the honorary secretary and that he had committed any misappropriation. On the aforesaid reasons and also after appreciating the entire evidence the Arbitrator rejected the claim. 3. Appeal filed by the Bank before the Tribunal as appeal No.17/2006 was also dismissed as per Ex.P5 judgment. In Ext.P5 the entire case has been again appreciated and the award has been confirmed. 4. A reading of Exts.P3 and P5 shows that both the Arbitrator and Tribunal appreciated the evidence and arrived at factual conclusions, which cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated for any reason, warranting interference in a proceedings under Artl.226 of the Constitution. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.20749/09 3