The issue in this writ petition is as follows:

Can the spouse of an employee be sued by the society under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act') on the premise that he or she has indemnified the other partner, the employee, for what is said to be the misappropriation committed by the said employee?

2. At the outset, I make it clear that I do not intend to get into the merits of the matter, for any adjudication of the matter on merits would prejudice the cause of either of the parties before the Arbitration Court, where the matter is pending.

3. The scope of the present adjudication is to examine whether the third respondent, the husband of the second respondent, the employee, could be sued along with his wife, and whether his property can be attached on the basis of Ext.P1, the alleged indemnity bond executed jointly by respondents 2 and 3.

4. The facts in brief are that the second respondent is one of the two collection agents working on a contract basis in the respondent Bank. For the financial year 2010-2011, in the audit conducted, it came to light that the Bank suffered a loss of more than Rs. 12,00,000/- on account of improper maintenance of records and misappropriation allegedly committed by the collection agents, who include the second respondent. In the next year, i.e., 2011-2012, the loss was quantified at about Rs.10,45,000/-. The reason assigned was the same. Finally, in the audit report for the financial year 2012-2013, the cumulative loss was quantified at Rs. 27,00,000/-. In fact, the audit report has recommended appropriate action against the erring employees, apart from the steps to be taken for the recovery of the allegedly misappropriated amounts.

5. In the above context, the respondent society called on the second respondent to show cause why she should not be proceeded against departmentally for the recovery of the amounts in question. It is the specific case of the respondent Bank that at that juncture, to ward off any disciplinary proceedings, the second respondent submitted Ext.P1 indemnity bond to the respondent Bank undertaking that she would clear within three months the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by her. Till then, she has offered, with the consent of her husband, the property belonging to him as security. A perusal of Ext.P1 shows that it was signed by both respondents 2 and 3, the wife and husband. Apparently, as the second respondent did not keep her word as per Ext.P1 indemnity bond, the respondent Bank initiated arbitration proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act'). The Bank has arrayed not only the employee, the wife, but also her husband, the third respondent, as parties to the proceedings. Later, the respondent Bank filed an interlocutory application seeking attachment of the third respondent's property pending adjudication of the arbitration proceedings.

6. As can be seen, respondents 2 and 3 filed another interlocutory application, as I gather, to declare that the arbitration proceedings against the third respondent cannot be sustained and that the attachment of his property is illegal. On merits, the Arbitration Court rejected the claim of respondents 2 and 3 through Ext.P6 order. Eventually, impugning Ext.P6 order of the Arbitration Court, respondents 2 and 3 filed Appeal No. 80 of 2014 before the Co-operative Tribunal, the first respondent. It has rendered Ext.P7 judgment upholding the contention of respondents 2 and 3: that arbitration proceedings are not maintainable against the third respondent and that his property ought not to have been attached. Aggrieved, the respondent Bank filed the present writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that in terms of Section 69 of the Act, proceedings against both respondents 2 and 3 are eminently maintainable. He has also submitted that in the light of Ext.P1 indemnity bond jointly executed by both the respondents, the a