IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9999 of 2009(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. RAMLA, D/O.KUNHATHA, CHERUMALAYIL HOUSE KANDAMANGALAM DESOM,KANDAMANGALAM PO MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. AYINABI, W/O.POKKER, AYNELLY HOUSE, KANDAMANGALAM DESOM MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SAFNA, D/O.POKKER, KANDAMANGALAM DESOM MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. KHADEEJA W/O. POKKER, KANDAMANGALAM AMSOM KANDAMANGALAM P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. ABDUL JINAS, S/O. POKKER, KANDAMANGALAM AMSOM, DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. POKKER, S/O MOHAMMED AYINELLIL HOUSE, KANDAMANGALAM P.O. MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. AYINELLY ABDUL GISHAD, S/O.POKKER, KANDAMANGALAM P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. KUNHEEN, S/O. ALAVI ARAKKUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANDAMANGALAM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA WP(C).No. 9999 of 2009(T) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTE BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ARIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAPPADAM PO, MANNARKKAD PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANNARKKAD PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.9999 of 2009-T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners filed different revisions before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal challenging different awards passed against them by the Arbitrator in favour of the second respondent. The learned Tribunal has passed interlocutory orders granting stay in favour of the writ petitioners, however imposing conditions. Having considered the amounts involved and the awards that are impugned before the Tribunal and the nature of the conditions imposed by the Tribunal in the interim orders, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or legal infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with those interim orders passed by the Tribunal. The amounts fixed are ordered on the basis of the awards which are WP(C)9999/09 -: 2 :- awards for recovery of money. Having lost the contentions on their merits, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought indulgence to enlarge the time frame to pay the amounts. Normally, for that, I would have relegated the parties to apply to the Tribunal. But, taking into consideration the fact that the financial year is ending, it is ordered that if the petitioners pay one half of the amounts covered by the impugned orders on or before 31.3.2009 and the remaining amounts on or before the last working day of April, 2009, the impugned interim orders issued by the Tribunal will be treated as satisfied. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/270309