Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 10253 of 2025
Decided On : 30-6-2025
For the Appellants : Chacko Mathews K., Aiswaria Devi R., Mathews Joseph, Sreekumar P.N.
For the Respondents: Shaji Thomas, Jen Jaison, Thomaskutty Sebastian, C.S. Sheeja
The time taken to obtain a certified copy of an award is excluded in computing the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act due to amendments in relevant rules.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Section 82 - Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rule 68 and Rule 98 - Challenge to award in appeal - The limitation period for appeal runs from the date of the award when pronounced in presence of parties. Recent amendment mandates obtaining a certified copy, affecting limitation computation. (Paras 2, 4, 12)
(B) Limitation - The appellate court's decision emphasized that the time taken to obtain the certified copy of the award must be excluded from the limitation period as per amended Rules. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The Changanacherry Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society challenged an award before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, arguing that time for appeal should exclude the period taken to obtain a certified copy of the award following amendments to relevant rules.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the time for obtaining a certified copy must be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal, leading to the setting aside of the award and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Issues: Whether the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the award should be considered in calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the amendment to Rule 68 necessitates the exclusion of the time for obtaining a certified award copy from the limitation period, reversing the previous ruling in C.K. Damodaran.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to a tribunal order by co-operative society. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. limitation period starts from award date. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. time taken for obtaining certified copy excluded from limitation. (Para 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. coercive proceedings deferred pending tribunal decision. (Para 7) |
| 5. division bench's interpretation of rules affects appeal timing. (Para 8 , 12) |
| 6. set aside award; remit to tribunal for fresh consideration. (Para 9 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
K. BABU, J.
1. 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 co
