Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8987
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
SCARIA K.G. – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4564 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN, SMT.KARTHIKA PEETHAMBARAN, SMT.NEERAJA VENUGOPAL, SRI.ARJUN J DAS, SMT.VINEETHA S. LAL
For the Respondents: SRI. M.SASINDRAN, SMT. C.S.SHEEJA (GP)
The court clarifies that the arbitrator holds the authority to consider limitations raised by a party in an arbitration concerning debt recovery claims.
Headnote:The petitioner contended that the 1st respondent bank initiated recovery under a time-barred debt per Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The Court observed that the arbitrator is to assess the limitation raise by the petitioner in Ext.P2. Hence, the matter is disposed directing the arbitrator to consider the limitation question during adjudication of the claim.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court contending that the 1st respondent bank has initiated proceedings to recover amounts due under a time barred debt by initiating proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969.
2. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent bank would submit that it is for the petitioner to raise any contention regarding limitation before the arbitrator, and there is no cause of action to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage of the proceedings. It is pointed out that the petitioner has already filed Ext.P2 written statement, taking up the contention that the claim is time barred. It is submitted that the arbitrator may be directed to consider the question of limitation while adjudicating the claim raised by the bank.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent bank, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of directing that, since the petitioner has already raised a contention regarding limitation in Ext.P2 written statement filed in respect of Ext.P1 claim, it is for the arbitrator to consider such contention at the time of adjudication of Ext.P1 claim raised by the bank.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that the arbitrator, before whom Ext.P1 claim raised by the bank is pending adjudication, shall specifically consider the question as to whether the claim is barred by limitation.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
