The court ruled on jurisdictional limits of appeals and product compliance, confirming discrepancies justify dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

The petitioner, stated to be engaged in the manufacture of HDPE bottles, contends that pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification floated by the respondent herein, for the supply of HDPE bottles on a regular basis, it participated in the tender process, turning out to be the successful bidder. An agreement is also stated to have been executed between the petitioner and the respondent. It is further stated that on the basis of the agreement, various purchase orders were being issued by the respondent seeking the supply of various quantities of bottles, which were also supplied. The petitioner further states that pursuant to Ext.P2 purchase order dated 18.12.1996, the respondent required the petitioner to make supply of the quantity of HDPE bottles to the extent mentioned therein. It is further pointed out that the petitioner started production straight away on receipt of the purchase Order at Ext.P2, however, adding that Ext.P3 communication dated 02.01.1997 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner informing that since they were having an excess quantity of stock, no production is to be carried out against the purchase order at Ext.P2. The petitioner states that on the very same date - 02.01.1997 - the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 letter to the respondent informing that insofar as manufacturing pursuant to the purchase order has already begun, the petitioner would be put to irreparable damages if the production is stopped. This is followed by Ext.P5 letter dated 30.01.1997 addressed to the petitioner seeking to cancel the purchase order at Ext.P2. In the afore circumstances, the petitioner approached the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) and by Ext.P6 award dated 20.03.2010, the Arbitrator awarded an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- as realizable from the respondent herein. The respondent sought to file an appeal before the Tribunal and in the appeal filed as above, raised a contention regarding the fact that there is some discrepancy as regards the bottles which were manufactured by the petitioner herein, with reference to the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 26.11.2005, which was filed before the Arbitrator originally. The appeal stood disposed of by Ext.P10 order issued by the Tribunal, holding that the petitioner herein (the respondent before the Tribunal) had no right or authority to substitute the colour choice for the bottles from the side of the respondent herein – the applicant before the Tribunal and hence seeking to allow the appeal. The petitioner filed a Writ petition against Ext.P10 order before this Court, and by Ext.P11 judgment dated 09.08.2017, this Court noticed the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the disparity in colour was raised for the first time before the appellate authority, there being no pleadings to that effect in the written statement filed before the original authority, and setting aside the appellate order as under:

“6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since various findings are rendered in favour of the petitioner and since there is no challenge made by the respondent against the findings in favour of the petitioner, if the matter is remanded, the Tribunal may be directed to confine itself to the challenge made by the petitioner in the writ petition with respect to the findings contained under Ext.P10 judgment. I find force in the said contention. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P10 to the extent the same is adversely passed against the petiti