IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21498 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- P.R. SREEHARI, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. ANANDAVALLY AMMA, THONIPPALATH HOUSE, EAST KADUNGALLUR, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. MANAGER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PALACE ROAD BRANCH, ALUVA. 2. PRESIDENT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KAKKANAD. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ERNAKULAM. 4. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR. R3, R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R1, R2 BY SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.21498 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent co-operative bank. An arbitration award was passed against him. That was put in execution. Petitioner claims that he had made various payments and is also entitled to the benefit of certain circulars issued by the Government. This Court, going by Ext.P2, did not think it fit to go into the question of applicability of the circulars. Petitioner was relegated to go for proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. He filed an arbitration case against the bank. The Arbitrator took the view that the issue regarding the debt, having been decided in the previous award, the second arbitration WPC21498/08 -:2:- case is unsustainable, though any other remedy could be worked out before the competent authority. This is under challenge. The consequential proceeding for attachment of salary is also under challenge. 2. All that the Arbitrator meant in Ext.P3 was that the issue relatable to the transaction between the petitioner and the first respondent are concluded by the earlier award passed in the arbitration case filed by the bank and that finality cannot be re-opened again. I am inclined to take the view that the Arbitrator was not unjustified in taking that stand. If the petitioner has any specific right under any circular which is binding on the first respondent and if he has a case of complete or partial discharge of the debt under the award, WPC21498/08 -:3:- those are questions relating to the due execution, discharge and satisfaction of the award passed in the arbitration case filed by the bank. This is a matter that can be taken care of by the executing authority, namely, the sale officer, who can look into the question and give due credit for all remittances and also give effect to any circular which is binding on the first respondent. It is clarified that this judgment, in no way, states about the binding nature of any circular. Hence, this writ petition is ordered refusing the reliefs sought for, however directing that, if the petitioner places a statement regarding remittances made by him, the sale officer shall take into consideration all such materials and take a decision thereon WPC21498/08 -:4:- within an outer limit of one month from the date of presentation of a copy of this judgment and the appearance of the petitioner before the sale officer. Until then, further proceedings on the basis of Ext.P4 will stand stayed. Petitioner is directed to appear before the sale officer attached to Ernakulam District Co- operative Bank on 5-8-2008. Petitioner and the bank shall be heard before a decision is taken as directed above. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.19.7.