Point of Law : scope of interference in appeal under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 in which it has been held that there is difference between the question whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench and as to the scope of interference.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. Sudha, J.

This case appears to be a classic example of the ‘fence eating the crop’. Now the question is, should this Court invoke its discretionary extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant relief to such a person, who is supposed to have drained the appellant-Chengalam Service Co-operative Bank (the Bank) of its resources by availing loans one after the other, to be specific 16 loans, in his own name and in the name of the members of his family, relatives and close aides and thereafter defaulted payment resulting in a liability of about two and odd crores of rupee, due to the appellant-Bank. This act of one individual, submits the learned senior counsel for the Bank, has landed the Bank in a precarious financial situation, on the brink of financial bankruptcy, due to which the Bank is unable to even return the deposits of its customers due to paucity of funds. The protagonist of this story, responsible for the sorry state of affairs of the Bank is stated to be Jose Antony, the former President of the Bank, who was at the helm of affairs of the Bank for 15 long years. Do we need to invoke our extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 in such circumstances is the question that begs an answer in this series of appeals.

2. These appeals are against the judgments dated 17.03.2022 in Writ Petitions (C) Nos.7753/2022, 7876/2022 and 7854/2022 respectively. Jose Antony and his daughters, Anju Jose and Anit Jose are the petitioners in Writ Petition (C)No.7876/2022. His wife Moly Jose is the sole petitioner in Writ Petition (C)No.7854/2022. Moly Jose is the 3rd petitioner in Writ Petition (C)No.7753/2022, apart from the 1st and 2nd petitioners, who are stated to be the loyal close aides of Jose Antony. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Collectorate P.O., Kottayam; Special Sale Officer, Akalakkunnam Village SCB Group, Assistant Registrar Office (G), Collectorate P.O., Kottayam and Chengalam Service C-operative Bank Ltd. are the respondents in the writ petitions. The 3rd respondent in the writ petitions, namely, the Chengalam Service C-operative Bank (the Bank) is the appellant in all the 3 appeals. The parties in the appeals will be referred to as described in the writ petitions.

3. W.A. No.408 of 2022

The 3rd respondent in Writ Petition (C) No.7753/2022 is the sole appellant herein. The three petitioners in the writ petition are respondents 1 to 3 herein. Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the fourth and the fifth respondents herein.

3.1 In the writ petition, the petitioners allege that they had availed loans from the third respondent-the Bank, by offering 99.9 cents of property as security. Due to the onset of Covid pandemic, they were unable to make prompt repayments. As on date, the balance amount outstanding is not substantial. Hence, if a breathing time is given, the petitioners will clear the outstanding liability. The petitioners have not received any notice from the Bank calling upon them to make any payments. They were taken aback on receipt of a notice from the second respondent to the effect that the property given as security for the loan transactions would be proceeded against for realization of the defaulted amounts. The petitioners, on enquiry, have come to know that the third respondent had initiated arbitration proceedings for realization of the amounts due from the petitioners resulting in Exts.P1 to P3 exparte awards dated 27/12/2019 in ARC 161/2019; ARC 185/2019 and ARC 221/2019 respectively. The petitioners never received any notice in the arbitration proceedings. It is only when they received Exts.P4 to P6 notice dated 19/02/2022 intimating them that their property would be proceeded against, they have come to know of the awards passed against them. There has not been proper accounting of the amounts remitted by the petitioners. The exact amounts to be repaid by the petitioners can be decided only after proper credit i