IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16428 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.RAVEENDRANATH, SAROJINI VIHAR, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.), SRI.MANU TOM, SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED NO.421, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.16428 of 2008-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner has filed two appeals before the Co-operative Tribunal against two awards of an arbitrator under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 on monetary disputes. The value of the appeals is more than Rs.7,70,000/- each. According to the petitioner, the applications for stay pending the appeals are not being considered and hence, the intervention of this Court is necessary to prevent execution proceedings pending the appeals. 2.The writ petitioner admittedly had moved this Court by filing WP(C).9460 of 2008 challenging the execution proceedings on the allegation that the Co-operative Tribunal was yet to entertain WP(C)16428/2008 -: 2 :- the appeals and the entire issue was referable to the demise of the counsel who was engaged by the petitioner. When I dealt with that writ petition, it was noticed that the petitioner had not even filed written statement before the arbitrator in proceedings which was pending for quite some time and ultimately, the award was issued on 25th October, 2004. Being not impressed by the contention that the appeal was not filed appropriately and entertained, that writ petition was ordered directing that if the petitioner remits the entire outstandings in six equal monthly instalments payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from March, 2008, the distress action would be held back and such payments would ultimately be regulated by the decision of the Tribunal in the statutory appeal under the KCS Act. 3.Admittedly, the writ petitioner had satisfied only the first among the conditions in the judgment dated 19-3-2008 in WP(C).9460/2008 in WP(C)16428/2008 -: 3 :- as much as the instalment of March, 2008 was paid and those which had accrued during April and May, 2008 have not been paid. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, made a fervent plea that the petitioner has been put to a precarious situation where he is not able to have the stay petitions listed before the Tribunal for consideration in spite of different adjournments and that he will be deprived of property without proper consideration of his challenge to the awards. 5.Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is directed that if the petitioner remits the amounts that were due in the months of April and May, 2008 on the terms of the judgment in WP(C).9640 within a period of 15 days from now, the distress action will stand suspended and the Tribunal will consider the applications for stay and would be at liberty to pass such orders as may be found necessary in its WP(C)16428/2008 -: 4 :- wisdom, notwithstanding anything contained in the said judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/030608