IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2858 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33291/2007 Dated 13/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. VINU MUNSHI, W/O. SANJAY MUNSHI, SUNAMA HOUSE, 140, AUGUST KRANTI MARG, MUMBAI-400 036. 2. GIREESH, S/O. GURULINGAPPA, 403, MEGH DANUSH COMPLEX, ADAJAN PATIA, SURAT - 384 009. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. M/S. GANDHIGRAM AGRO BASED INDUSTRIES, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (GAICO), KURAVILANGAD, PIN-686 633, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. MR. SANJAY MUNSHI, S/O. CHAMANLAL, DIRECTOR, SHANGRILLA LATEX INDUSTRIES (P) LTD., SUNAMA HOUSE, ALTAMOUNT ROAD, MUMBAI-400 036. 3. M/S. SHANGRILA LATEX PVT. LTD., SUNAMA HOUSE, ALTAMOUNT ROAD, MUMBAI-400 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 4. THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICER, TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICE, PALA-686 575. R1 BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.HARISH ABRAHAM R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W. A. No. 2858 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J The appellants are the writ petitioners. The writ petition was filed by them, challenging Exts.P3 and P5 orders of the arbitrator and Kerala Co-operative Tribunal respectively. ARC No.1 of 2004, filed by the 1st respondent against the 2nd and 3rd respondents, is pending before the 4th respondent. The petitioners, who are the Directors of the 3rd respondent company, have also been impleaded in the above ARC by the 4th respondent, by Ext.P3 order, though they stiffly resisted the application for impleadment. The petitioners carried the matter in revision before the Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the arbitrator as per Ext.P5. Therefore, the writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P3 and P5. 2. Appellants would submit that the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the 3rd respondent is a partnership firm and the appellants being partners of the said firm are jointly and severally liable. The said assumption is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable, it is submitted. Other contentions are also raised. WA No.2858/2007 -:2:- But, we notice that the learned Single Judge has issued necessary directions to safeguard the interest of the appellants and also their contentions. The relevant portion of the judgment under appeal reads as follows: “4. By the impleadment, while the petitioners have been brought on record as additional defendants in the arbitration case, such impleadment shall not, in any manner, impair any of their defence, including the right to content that there can be no personal liability on them, who were directors of the third respondent company at some point of time. The question whether they are personally liable has to be decided with reference to the relevant laws and the facts. The maintainability of proceedings against the petitioners is also an issue which would be available for consideration at the final disposal of the arbitration case. The effect of the order of impleadment is only that the petitioners have been brought on record as additional defendants and the impugned orders do not, in any manner, preclude any of the contentions of the petitioners on the merits of the case, including the question of jurisdiction, maintainability and liability of parties. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, while affirming the impleadment of the petitioners in the arbitration case, it is directed that the proceedings in the arbitration case shall be untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned orders. The petitioners shall be given opportunity to place on record WA No.2858/2007 -:3:- all contentions as are available to them in opposition to the arbitration case and the matter shall be decided on merits without reference to the reasons stated in the impugned orders.” 3. Going by the above portion of the judgment, we are of the firm view that, all the contentions of the appellants are kept open, notwithstanding the impugned orders, Exts.P3 and P5. Therefore, even if now they are parties to the arbitration proceedings, they can resist fastening any liability on them, raising all possible contentions. In view of the order of the learned Single Judge, the arbitrator is bound to consider them on merits uninfluenced by anything contained in Exts.P3 and P5. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ttb