IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 17312 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANL LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, LADIES BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SC,KOTTAYAM DIST.COOP.BAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,(GENERAL) KOTTAYAM. 2. ANITHA TITUS, W/O.TITUS MANI, PROPRIETRESS, ANUVAYAR PUSTHAKASALA, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 17312/2009. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN THE ARBITRATION CASE DT. 30-10-2001. EXT.P2 OBJECTION DT. 17-12-2003. EXT.P3 AWARD IN ARC 904/2003. EXT.P4 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT. EXT.P5 COMMUNICATION DT. 20-2-2009. EXT.P6 DEMAND NOTICE DT. 19-5-2009. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 9-6-2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF PASS BOOK. EXT.R2(b) LETTER DT. 15-9-2000. EXT.R2(c) COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.R2(d) ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DT. 18-9-2000. EXT.R2(e) LETTER DT. 10-10-2000. EXT.R2(f) COMPLAINT DT. 13-11-2000. EXT.R2(g) PLAINT DT. 30-10-2001. EXT.R2(h) JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 28832/2003. EXT.R2(i) TRUE COPY OF PETITION. EXT.R2(j) PROOF AFFIDAVIT DT. 15-4-2004. EXT.R2(k) TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION APPLICATION. EXT.R2(l) ORDER IN W.P.C.NO. 8431/2008. EXT.R2(m) JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 8431/2008. EXT.R2(n) ORDER IN CONT. CASE (CIVIL) NO. 414/2009 . [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 17312 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Co-operative Society. According to the petitioner, amounts are due from the 2nd respondent towards cash credit accommodation given by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. In respect of the balance amount due, there was a dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent approached the arbitrator under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. By Ext. P3 order, the arbitrator rendered a decision directing the petitioner-Bank to give a detailed statement of accounts regarding the amounts due from the 2nd respondent and till then, the statement submitted by the 2nd respondent would hold good. Treating this as a decree, contending that the petitioner has not given detailed statements of accounts to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings for execution of Ext. P3 award. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P8 order was passed by the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,48,790/-, which is under challenge before me. 2. According to the petitioner, there is nothing to be executed in Ext. P3 award. There is no decree directing the petitioner-bank to pay any amount to the 2nd respondent, is the contention raised by the petitioner. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent in which the 2nd respondent would contend that although it is not specifically stated so in Ext. P3, the tenor of Ext. P3 is that if a detailed statement of accounts is not given by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent, amounts due as per the statement filed by the 2nd would be due to the 2nd respondent from the petitioner. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am not satisfied that Ext. P3 is a decree at all directing W.P.C. No. 17312/09 -: 2 :- payment of any amounts to the 2nd respondent. That being so, Ext. P8 order directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 2,48,790/- is clearly unsustainable. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the arbitrator should re-consider the ARC itself after considering the rival contentions and pass a specific decree as to who is to pay and what amount to whom. To facilitate the same, I quash Exts.P3 and P8. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider ARC No. 904/2003 afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent and pas fresh orders under Section 69 in accordance with law and the observations made herein as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It would be open to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/