IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 835 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.35681/2008 DATED 31/12/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K.M.PYARIJAN, W/O ABDUL JAMAL. K.K., AGED 48, KAKKSON HOUSE, PATTANAM, VADAKKEKARA P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- MR.SOMAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SPECIAL SALE OFFICER/ SENIOR INSPECTOR, KADUNGALLOOR SCB GROUP, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, NORTH PARAVOOR, PIN- 683 513. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. D. SOMASUNDARAM. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CON. CASE (C).NO.835/2011-S: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE.A.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.35681/2008. ANNEXURE.A.2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 20/01/2009. ANNEXURE.A.3: COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD FOR SENDING THE OBJECTION. ANNEXURE.A.4: COPY OF THE DEMAND/RECOVERY NOTICE ALONG WITH THE NOTICE FOR SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VIDE NO.E.P.1531/2005 ARC NO.3356/03 DTD. 28/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.835 of 2011-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011. Judgment 1.The petitioner is the judgment debtor under an arbitration award under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. He challenged the recovery proceedings. He disputed the liability. That plea was repelled in view of the finality attained by the arbitration award in ARC.No.3356 of 2003. He was, however, permitted to raise any dispute that he may have regarding the total amount fixed for recovery which means he could dispute that the notice issued by the Sale Officer in execution and recovery is in excess of the amount covered by the arbitration award. He also had some claims relating to some exemptions or discounts on the basis that the loan is for agricultural purpose etc. Those issues stood concluded by the earlier proceedings. COC835/11 -: 2 :- 2.Today, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed before me a copy of order dated 23.3.2009, whereby the dispute of the petitioner regarding the amount fixed for recovery has been answered against him. If he has any objection to that, it is for him to raise it before the competent authority by appropriate challenge. In the result, this contempt of court case is closed, however directing the respondent to place a copy of the aforesaid decision in this case after serving a copy of it to the learned counsel for the petitioner so that if aggrieved, the petitioner can work out his remedies against that decision. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sha/2408