Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1980
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 10253 OF 2025
Decided On : 30-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SHRI.CHACKO MATHEWS K. SMT.AISWARIA DEVI R. SHRI. MATHEWS JOSEPH SHRI.SREEKUMAR P.N.
For the Respondent: SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.JEN JAISON SHRI.THOMASKUTTY SEBASTIAN SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR.GP.
The time taken to obtain a certified copy of an award must be excluded from the limitation period for filing an appeal under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Section 82 - Appeal against award - Challenge to Ext.P4 order by the Changanacherry Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society concerning filing period - Court interprets amended Rule 68 and Rule 98; holding that time for obtaining copy of the award must be excluded from limitation period - Award was set aside, and matter remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 3, 10, 13)
(B) Limitation - Determination of the starting point for filing an appeal and the relevance of communication modes in light of rule amendments. (Paras 4, 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a writ petition against the order of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal concerning their appeal against an earlier award, arguing the effect of the time taken to obtain a certified award copy on limitation.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the delay in obtaining the award copy impacts the limitation period under Section 82, leading to the setting aside of the Tribunal's decision.
Issues: Whether the time for obtaining a certified copy of the award is to be excluded in computing the limitation period for appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that under the amended rules, the time taken to receive a copy of the award must be excluded when calculating the appeal's limitation period, necessitating a reconsideration of the matter by the Tribunal.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the tribunal's decision (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. starting point of limitation for appeals (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. amendment implications on appeal processes (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. counsel submissions regarding applicability of case law. (Para 6) |
| 5. pre-amendment rule 68 interpretation (Para 7) |
| 6. writ petition disposed; fresh consideration ordered (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
K.BABU, J.
The challenge in this Writ Petition is to Ext.P4 order passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No.330/2024. The petitioner, the Changanacherry Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society, was the appellant.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short “the Act”) challenging the award dated 17.08.2024 in A.R.C No.207/2020 passed by the Arbitrator attached to the office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Changanacherry.
3. The appeal was filed on 29.10.2024. The period of limitation for filing appeal under Section 82 of the Act is 60 days from the date of award.
4. Admittedly, the award was passed in the presence of the petitioner. The Tribunal following C.K.Damodaran v. Kerala Co- operative Tribunal and Others (1980 KLT 520) took the view that as the award was passed in the presence of the petitioner/appellant, the time runs from the date of award.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ratio of the Division Bench in C.K.Damodaran is not applicable to the facts of this case as the decision in C.K.Damodaran was rendered prior to the amendment to Rule 68 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules'). The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in view of Rule 98 of the Rules, certified copy of the award is to be mandatorily filed along with the appeal, and therefore, the time taken for delivering the copy of the award is to be excluded from calculating the period of limitation.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the law declared in C.K.Damodaran governs the field.
7. Rule 68 of the Rules prior to the amendment in 2000 reads thus:
“68. Mode of communication of orders and decisions in deciding Disputes.--An award, decision or order passed by the Registrar or any other person deciding the dispute or the arbitrator referred to in S.70 of the Act, shall be sent to the applicant by the Registrar with his seal affixed thereon, by registered post. One copy of the award, decision, or order shall be retained in the file concerned and the same kept in tact for a period of 12 years. A gist of the award shall also be communicated by the Registrar to the defendants, by post in case they are not present at the time of delivering the order or decision.”
8. Interpreting Rule 68 of the Rules (pre-amended Rule), the Division Bench of this Court held that the date of pronouncement of the award in the presence of the parties or the date of communication of the gist of the award to the parties under Rule 68 of the Rules alone would constitute the starting point of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 82 of the Act.
9. Rule 68 of the Rules (after 2000 amendment) reads thus:
“68. Mode of communication of orders and decisions in deciding Disputes.--An award, decision or order passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court or Registrar or any other person deciding the dispute or the Arbitration referred under section 70 of the Act, shall be sent to the applicant by the Court or Registrar, as the case may be, with his seal affixed thereon, by registered post. One copy of the award, decision, or orders shall be retained in the file concerned and same kept in tact for a period of 12 years. The copy of the award/order shall be communicated to the defendants also by registered post.”
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the 2000 amendment, the legislature consciously avoided the non- requirement of sending the gist of the award to the defendan
