IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29665 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.VELAPPAN NAIR, SOMAN NAGAR, NEDUMGAD, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KARAMANA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S.CHANDRAN, CHITHRAS, NEDUMGAD, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 29665 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 order of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st respondent filed an arbitration case before the Arbitrator seeking to recover certain amounts taken as loan by the 2nd respondent, for repayment of which, the petitioner was the guarantor. By Ext.P1 award, the arbitrator allowed the ARC and directed recovery of the amounts with interest from the petitioner and the 2nd respondent jointly and severally. The petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner had not executed any document guaranteeing repayment by the 2nd respondent of any loan. That contention was considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal found that the signature in the loan document was that of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is liable. The petitioner's contention is that in respect of another loan taken by the wife of the 2nd respondent the very same Tribunal had accepted the contention of the petitioner and held that the wife of the 2nd respondent did not execute any loan document, by Ext.P3 order. Since the facts of both cases are identical, the Tribunal went wrong in allowing one and dismissing the other, is the contention of the petitioner. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 3. The Tribunal herself has in Ext.P2 considered the argument of the petitioner in respect of the order in the other appeal and held that the facts of the two cases are not similar. In Ext.P3 order the Tribunal found that marking of the loan documents as exhibits has been scored off by the Arbitrator himself and therefore, there was no proof of the loan documents, whereas in this particular case, the loan documents were duly proved. The Tribunal found that the loan documents contain the petitioner's signature and therefore, there was no forgery as alleged by the petitioner. As such, I am also satisfied that the facts of the two cases are not similar. In fact, once it is found that the signature in the loan documents is that of the petitioner and the principal debtor, viz., the 2nd respondent, did not challenge the arbitration award, I do not think that the petitioner can succeed in that appeal. In any event, I do not find any perversity in the findings in Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge