IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14143 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.RAVINDRANATHA WARRIER, S/O.LATE DR.V.S.ACHUTHA WARRIER, AGED 60 YEARS, SAROJINI VIHAR, VEEPALLI VARIYAM, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 4. THE KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. NO.421, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.14143 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P2 and P10 and to direct the respondents not to take further proceedings pursuant to the impleadment of the petitioner in the arbitration proceedings. 2. The petitioner's wife was the Manager of the Ettumanoor Branch of the 4th respondent. In August 2003, she was placed under suspension, on allegation of misconducts and the arbitration was also raised by the Bank against the petitioner's wife. At that stage, by Ext.P1 agreement executed by the petitioner in favour of the Bank, he undertook to make good the dues which the petitioner's wife owned to the Bank. Accordingly, petitioner was made a party to arbitration proceedings and by, by Ext.P2, the 2nd respondent authorized attachment of the petitioner's WP(c).No.14143/09 2 property. Ext.P3 objection was filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent and this court in Ext.P4 judgment in WP(c). No.30178/04 filed by the petitioner, directed consideration of the objections. Accordingly, objections were considered and by Ext.P5 the 2nd respondent declined to lift the order of attachment. 3. Ext.P5 order was called in question before this court in WP(c).No.1208/05. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment relegating the petitioner to seek appellate remedy. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before the first respondent, which again was directed to be considered as per Ext.P8 judgment rendered by this court in WP(c).No.29918/05 filed by the petitioner. The appeal was heard and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by Ext.P10 order. It is in these circumstances this writ petition is filed. 4. The contention raised before me is that the Arbitrator has no power to implead a stranger to the proceedings and pass an order of attachment before judgment. According to WP(c).No.14143/09 3 the Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any clear statutory provision conferring power in this behalf, the Arbitrator could not have passed Ext.P2 order. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is clearly answered by the Division Bench of this court in Thankam R. Pillai V. Arbitrator(1996(1)KLT 225), where it has been held as follows; “All powers which are not specifically denied by the statute or the statutory rules should be vouchsafed to a Tribunal so that it may effectively exercise its judicial function. A Tribunal in its wider connotation, embraced every adjudicatory organ including an Arbitrator. A “Tribunal” literally means a seat of justice. May be, justice is dispensed by a quasi-judicial body, an arbitrator, a commission, a court or other adjudicatory organ created by the State. The Arbitrator functioning under the Act is a quasi- WP(c).No.14143/09 4 judicial adjudicatory body falling within the term “ tribunal” 5. Following this judgment, in Paul V. Asst. Registrar (1998(2)KLT 449), a learned judge of this court has also held that the preposition that emerges from the above decision is that all the powers which are not specifically denied by the statute or the statutory rules should be vouchsafed to a Tribunal. In view of the above decision I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.14143/09 5