IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1946 WA NO. 1208 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2023 IN WP(C) NO.7175 OF 2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

MOHANDAS C AGED 63 YEARS S/O LATE DAMODARAN, CHARAKKUMALIL HOUSE, P.O. KULUKKALLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679337 BY ADVS.

P.JAYARAM P.B.AJOY ATHUL G.T.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 THE VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NO. F. 1207, P.O. NELLAYA, PALAKKAD DISTICT, PIN - 679335

2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)

OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101

3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 SR. GP- RESHMI . K.M. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE - R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J.

1. Present writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dismissing WP(C) No.7175 of 2013, upholding the order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-

Operative societies(General) dated 22.12.2012.

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are that Co-operative Bank instituted a proceeding against the appellant -writ petitioner under Section 69 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, for recovery of the amount through A.R.C No.2187/2008. In the aforementioned proceedings, argument on behalf of the appellant/petitioner was that the claim was ex facie barred by limitation, as, the liability if any, had accrued before three(3) years and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 16(4) of the Kerala Co-

operative Societies Act, petition was liable to be dismissed. Learned Single Bench noticing the fact that ARC was filed in 2008, decided that amendment caused in 2013 would not apply retrospectively.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner contends that this is a matter which is required to be adjudicated in detail by giving the opportunity to the parties to lead evidence but not in the manner and mode the impugned order Ext.P6 dated 22.12.2012 has been passed.

4. Sri.Jawahar Jose who is present in this Court, accepts notice on behalf of the Bank and submits that the writ petition stood admitted in 2013 with an interim order. Petitioner has already delayed the adjudication of the proceedings under Section 69 for a period of ten(10) years.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

6. The order dated 22.12.2022 reads as under:

“During the trial of the case ARC 2187/2008, the opposite side contended that under section 69 of the Co-operation Act, the arbitration case of 2008 was applicable to the law of limitation and therefore the case was not maintainable. Ruling No. 146(SC) of 1999 (2) KLT was produced as proof of this. Against this, the plaintiff produced 3 rulings, 1974 KLT 657, 1978 KLT 256, 1989 (2) KLT 895 which held that the law of limitation does not apply to arbitration reference cases.

On perusal of the rulings presented by both the parties, it was held that the ruling presented by the opposite party, Ruling No. 146(SC) of 1999 (2) KLT, was related to the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. In this case the following order is issued.

It is hereby ordered that the law of limitation Act, 1963 shall not apply to the case ARC 2187/2008.”

In view of above when there was no limitation before the amendment claim cannot be time barred as alleged. We also cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the writ petition stood admitted in 2013 with an interim order which has been decided only on 13.07.2023. There is no illegality and perversity in the order of the Single Bench. Writ Appeal is dismissed. Arbitration Tribunal is directed to expedite the hearing of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/-

EASWARAN S.

JUDGE nak APPEND