Jurisdictional authority is granted to arbitrators under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to order attachment before judgment.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Mannarkkad, who is also the arbitrator in ARC Nos.78 of 2026 and 79 of 2026, which are applications filed under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1969 Act’), by the 2^nd respondent against the 1^st petitioner claiming certain amounts. It is the case of the 2^nd respondent that it maintains certain with the 1^st petitioner and despite maturity they have not been paid. By Ext.P2 order dated 20.01.2026, the bank account of the 1^st petitioner mentioned in the order has been attached.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Ext.P2 order is causing great prejudice to the petitioners. It is submitted that there are amounts lying to the credit of the 1^st petitioner in the account (that has been attached) in connection with the implementation of a Government scheme, and that the attachment is causing serious prejudice to the implementation of the said scheme.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would point out that, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 78 of the 1969 Act, it is well within the jurisdiction of an arbitrator acting under Section 69 of the 1969 Act to order attachment before judgment, and that such power is akin to the power exercised by the civil court under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is submitted that if the petitioners were to provide adequate security, the attachment order can be lifted by the arbitrator on a proper application being made for the same.

4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the total amount due to the 2nd respondent on account of fixed deposits maintained with the 1^st petitioner is a sum of Rs.36,78,630/- (as on

05-02-2026).

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that any amount in excess of the amount due to the 2^nd respondent as on 05-02-2026 may be permitted to be utilised, and the petitioners may also be permitted to approach the arbitrator seeking modification of Ext.P2 order.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader, and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, I am of the view that there is no jurisdictional error or other infirmity in Ext.P2 order issued by the 1st respondent. The provisions of Section 78 of the 1969 Act authorise the 1^st respondent to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P2, and if the order is to be modified in any manner, it is for the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the 1st respondent for modification of the order. However, taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 that the amount due to the 2^nd respondent, as on 05-02-2026, is Rs.36,78,630/-, and in order to enable the petitioners to operate the bank account in question, there will be an order directing that any amount lying to the credit of the petitioners in excess of the said sum of Rs.36,78,630/- (as on 05-02-2026) shall be permitted to be utilised. This order shall be provisional and will be in force for a period of one month. Within the aforesaid period of one month, it shall be open to the petitioners to approach the 1st respondent by filing a suitable application for modification of the order, and thereafter, the parties shall be governed by the orders to be passed by the 1^st respondent. It is made clear that any application by the petitioners shall be adjudicated by the 1^st respondent only after hearing