Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T. R. Ravi, J
BINDU DILEEP – Appellant
Versus
KIZHATHADIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 1995 – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33019 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 39576 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 26659 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL, SRI.C.B.GAUTHAM, SRI.JAI GEORGE, SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE, SRI.BALRAM S.A
For the Respondents: SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR, SR.GP
Knowledge of an award negates procedural challenges based on non-communication, and courts will not entertain revision petitions filed with significant delay.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Awards and revision petitions - The petitioners challenged ex-parte awards directing payment of dues, citing non-compliance with Rule 68 requiring communication of the award - The court held that knowledge of the award negates the procedural challenge - Awards dismissed on grounds of delay in seeking revisions and calculated inaction of debtors. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Compliance with Statutory Provisions - The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 68 for communication of awards and its implications on the validity of petitions. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
Writ petitions arose from awards of an arbitrator under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for amounts due, with the debtors remaining ex-parte despite being served with summons. Revision petitions filed almost 10 years later were dismissed for delay.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the debtors had prior knowledge of the award and delay in challenging it precluded relief; it maintained that the voluntary choice to delay the challenge invalidated their petitions.
Issues: Whether failure to communicate the award constituted grounds for challenging the delay of revision petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that the petitioners were aware of the award for years before filing for revision, establishing that delay and lack of diligence forfeited their rights to seek relief under the Co-operative Societies Act.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed; auction process ordered to complete.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions arise from arbitration awards. (Para 1) |
| 2. challenging awards based on rule 68 non-compliance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. defendants aware of the award; execution proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. conduct of debtors; no relief due to delay. (Para 7) |
T.R. RAVI, J. --------------------------------------------
WP(C) Nos.33019/2024, 39576/2024 & 26659/2025 --------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
All these writ petitions arise out of awards dated
19.11.2014 in A.R.C.Nos.150 of 2014 and 151 of 2014 issued by the Arbitrator under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act . The proceedings were initiated at the instance of the Kizhathadiyoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the bank”) for realisation of amounts due from the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.33019 of 2024 and 26659 of 2025. The debtors remained ex-parte even though they were served with summons. The Arbitration Court passed the award directing payment of the amounts. Revision petitions were filed before the Co-operative Arbitration Tribunal on 14.02.2024 almost after 10 years. The revision petitions were
8 dismissed on the ground of delay and rightly so. W.P.(C) Nos.33019 of 2024 and 26659 of 2025 have been filed challenging the ex-parte award and the order of the Tribunal. W.P.(C) No.39576 of 2024 has been filed by the auction purchaser who had purchased the properties in auction in execution of the award.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.
3. The main ground on which the writ petitions is filed is that under Rule 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules a copy of the award has to be sent to the defendants by registered post and in the case on hand there was no such communication. It is hence submitted that as long as there was no communication there is non-compliance of the requirement of Rule 68 and the revision petition filed against the award could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay since the date from which the delay has to be reckoned 9 had not yet begun.
4. The counsel relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court inPaul v. Assistant Registrar [ 1998 (2) KLT 449 ], wherein this Court had held that the requirement under Rule 68 is mandatory. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the another Single Judge of this Court inChanganaserry Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society Limited vs. State of Kerala & Anr. [ 2025 (4) KHC 584 ], which was rendered after the amendment of Rule 68 in 2000, wherein also it has been held that the requirement to sent copy of the award is mandatory.
5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners/debtors are not entitled to take a contention based on Rule 68 since they had knowledge of the award as early as in 2015. It is submitted that execution petitions were filed in 2015 and notices had been admittedly served on the judgment debtors. It is further submitted that
10 there were two occasions when sale proclamations were made and on each such occasion the judgment debtors were served with notice which is also an admitted fact. Having known about the award as early as in 2015, the debtors chose to challenge the same before the Tribunal only on 14.02.2024, that too, after the execution sale conducted on 31.01.2024. It is thus evident that the judgment debtors were pushing their luck very far without challenging the award even after having know about it for almost 9 years. The question is whether the writ petitions at the instance of such persons should be entertained by this Court. Another ground that is raised on behalf of the judgment debtors is that the value for which the property has been bid was very low and there is irregularity in the same.
6. The counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court in Sarojini Amma v Trivandrum District Cooperative Bank Ltd. [ 2005 KHC 1019 ] considered the
11 question of the period of limitation for preferring a revision un
