IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6046 of 2009(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ERATTUPETTA BLOCK RUBBER MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. K 821, ERATTUPETTA.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. MR.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.6046 of 2009-A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The respondent is an apex co-operative society. The petitioner contends that the respondent owes certain amounts to the petitioner. Primarily, this is a matter for arbitration under Section 69 of the KCS Act. 2.Since the respondent deals with public funds also, this matter was adjourned for instructions. It is today reported on behalf of the respondent that the amounts that are due to the petitioner are not as claimed and that those amounts were not released because certain other persons had issued an advocate's notice claiming that monies are due to them from the petitioner. It is also pointed out that as of now, the respondent does not have a Managing Director. WP(C)6046/2009 -: 2 :- 3.Merely because certain third parties issued an advocate's notice to the respondent, law does not require the respondent to detain any funds that have to be released to the petitioner. It appears that there were applications pending before the Joint Registrar at the instance of those third parties and that this Court had directed the Joint Registrar to decide those applications. The said officer has rejected those applications relegating the parties for arbitration in accordance with law. Exts.P6 and P9 show that no arbitration proceedings have been initiated. Whatever that be, unless there are effective interdictory orders deterring the respondent from paying the amounts, the respondent need not feel tied down to release the amounts which it admits to be due to the petitioner. This is more so because, in certain cases, the respondent can also be liable for payment of interest for delayed payment. That has necessarily to be avoided. WP(C)6046/2009 -: 3 :- Having regard to the fact that there is no Managing Director for the respondent as of now, all that has to be done is that the respondent shall release all amounts it admits as due to the petitioner within a period of three months from now so that if the petitioner has any continued claim on the basis of that quantification, it will be a matter for the petitioner to raise it in the form of an arbitration before the competent authority. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/120309