IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21338 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAHEL ABRAHAM,W/O. ABRAHAM, ELAVUMKUDY HOUSE KARINGAZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- N.O. JOSE, S/O. OUSEPH, NELLIKKATTIL HOUSE,KARINGAZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.21338 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner had availed of a loan from the Kothamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., to which respondent herein stood as a surety. Default was committed. Bank filed ARC.No.550/02 for realization of the amount. An ex-parte award was passed and pursuant to which, the respondent being the surety, discharged the liability. 2. Thereafter respondent filed ARC. No.322/04 against the petitioner for realising the amount paid by him. Ext.P1 is the copy of the ARC and Ext.P2 is the written statement filed by the petitioner. One of the objections raised by the petitioner was that the ARC is not maintainable and that the remedy of the respondent is to file a civil suit to realise the amount. However, over ruling WP(c).No.21338/09 2 the objections Ext.P3 award was passed. 3. Against the award passed, petitioner filed Revision petition No.42/07 before the Arbitration Tribunal and that was dismissed by Ext.P4 order. It is challenging Exts.P2 and P4 referred to above, the writ petition is filed. 4. I am not impressed by the contention raised by the petitioner that the ARC was not maintainable. Section 69 of the Act provides that, dispute of any nature defined in the Act shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Board constituted under Section 70A of the Act. It is provided that in the case of monetary disputes, the Arbitration Court shall decide such disputes and no court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. Sub Section 2(b) of Section 69 of the Act provides that a claim by a surety against the principal debtor, where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal WP(c).No.21338/09 3 debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not shall also be deemed to be a dispute. 5. Although it is the case of the counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Section 2(i) of the Act, dispute means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a society and that the dispute which is the subject matter of the ARC filed by the respondent does not come within the scope of Section 2(i), having regard to the provisions contained in Section 69 and particularly sub Section 2(b) referred to above, I do not think that the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner has any force. In my view, the ARC filed by the respondent is perfectly maintainable and Ext.P3 award and the order of the Tribunal confirming the same do not warrant any interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.21338/09 4