IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33090 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. SUBRAMANYA PILLA, BADGE NO.40-11215, OFFICER, ESTATE DIVISION, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL. 2. K.SARASWATHY, BADGE NO.40-8482, JR.P.S.FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL. 3. K.K.AMMINI, BADGE NO.40-13400, SWEEPER, FACT, UDYOGMANDAL. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. FACT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED NO.E.653, UDYOGAMANDAL, ELOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ELOOR. 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE), FACT LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, ELOOR. 3. R.SUKUMARAN, BADGE NO.13383, CARE TAKER, ESTATE DIVISION, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SG FOR R4 SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE,SC FACT FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R1 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------- W.P(c)No.33090 OF 2007 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners stood as sureties for a facility availed by the third respondent from the first respondent Co-operative society. They executed agreements which fall under Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Based on those agreements, recoveries are being effected against the petitioners and the third respondent. Ext.P4 salary statement of the third respondent shows that, he virtually does not have any take home pay and an amount of Rs. 2,169/- is being deducted towards the loan availed from the first respondent society. 2. According to the petitioners, deposits made from the earnings of the third respondent, as discernible from Ext.P4, including remittances towards insurance premium and other payments may in the long run result only in favour of the third respondent and such deductions cannot be taken into account for the purpose of effecting recovery towards the loan account in question. Having regard to the nature of deduction in Ext.P4, I do not find that such deductions can be a ground in favour of the WPC.No.33090/07 2 petitioner, particularly when different remittances in terms of Ext.P4 are for different purposes and the entire earnings of the third respondent are also being wiped off accordingly. 3. The next contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that Ext.P1 does not constitute any agreement and that it is vague. This also cannot be accepted, having regard to the terms of the undertaking given by the petitioners as part of Ext.P1, whereby they have undertaken that the amounts due to them from salary and other heads can be deducted by the employer company to be poured into first respondent's account for the purpose of repaying the loan, in case of default. For the aforesaid reasons, particularly when action under Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act has proceeded not only against the petitioners, but also against the third respondent, I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the proceedings. Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE sv WPC.No.33090/07 3