Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
V.P. Ranjini – Appellant
Versus
The Kerala Co-operative Tribunal – Respondent
Writ Petition | WA No.745 of 2021 | Appeal No.67 of 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners:[Counsel for petitioner]
For the Respondents:[Counsel for respondents]
Remand orders cannot allow parties to rectify evidence gaps identified by courts, ensuring procedural fairness.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Issue of remand - Tribunal ordered remand for fresh consideration, contrary to prior court directives - The court restrained the Tribunal from allowing the Bank to fill in evidential gaps during remand, emphasizing adherence to procedural fairness. (Paras 1, 2, 3)
(B) Legal principles on remand orders - The proper scope of remand cannot permit parties to rectify deficiencies in evidence not previously addressed in court.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former Bank Manager, challenged the Tribunal's judgment that remanded her case back to an Arbitrator after prior orders indicated disallowing such actions to prevent evidential gaps by the Bank.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's action to further remand exceeded the court's directions, thus setting aside the recent judgment and directing the Tribunal for fresh orders accordingly.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Tribunal overstepped its boundaries in remanding the case again when previously instructed not to allow the Bank to fill evidential gaps and whether it improperly permitted additional parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that a remand cannot allow a party to introduce evidence after deficiencies have been established by the opposing counsel, thereby adhering strictly to procedural directives provided by higher courts.
Result: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P11 is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenging tribunal's remand. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on remand authority and evidentiary gaps. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P11 judgment of the 1st respondent Tribunal in Appeal No.67 of 2011. The 3rd respondent filed ARC No.50 of 2010 before the Arbitration Court under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for recovery of the amounts due. The allegation is that the petitioner who was working as a Manager in the evening branch of the Bank had given loan by accepting spurious gold and caused loss to the Bank. 20 loans were involved in the case. The Arbitrator passed an award on 04.10.2011 dismissing the claim. Ext.P6 is the copy of the award. Ext.P6 was challenged by the Bank in Appeal No.67 of 2011 before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by judgment dated 15.03.2013 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Arbitrator for fresh consideration. The order of remand was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.14197 of 2013. By Ext.P9 judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the award of the Tribunal finding that the remand would not serve the purpose as the Bank has failed to lead any evidence. The Bank filed WA No.745 of 2021 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. By Ext.P10 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and remitted back the matter to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. In paragraph No.6 of the judgment, the Division Bench stated that the Bench is in agreement with the argument of the counsel for the petitioner herein that if the remand ordered by the Tribunal is sustained, it will provide an opportunity to the Bank to plug in the lacuna in the evidence in initiating proceedings against the petitioner and hence the Bench is of the considered opinion that the order of remand of the Tribunal has to be set aside and the Tribunal should be directed to consider it afresh. It can thus be seen that what has been done by the Division Bench is to set aside the order of remand passed by the Tribunal originally. The reason stated is that the respondent Bank should not be permitted to plug in the lacuna by means of a remand to the Arbitrator. Pursuant to Ext.P10, the Tribunal reconsidered the matter and has issued Ext.P11 judgment. Curiously, the Tribunal has done exactly what this Court had expected it not to do. The Tribunal has again remanded the matter to the Arbitrator and has permitted the plaintiff to implead additional parties and to file additional pleadings and directed the Arbitrator to consider the matter afresh.
2. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has expanded the scope of the remand ordered by this Court and overlooking the fact that this Court had set aside the earlier order of remand with specific direction, has again remanded the matter.
