The petitioner says that he is the

defendant in an Arbitration Case filed by the

respondent-Choondacherry Service Co-operative

Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Society' for short) and that he is aggrieved

by Ext.P10 order of the Co-operative Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for

short) permitting the Society to amend the

said ARC. The petitioner says the ARC was

initially sought to be withdrawn by the

Society with permission to file a fresh one,

which had been allowed by the Arbitrator and

that he challenged this by filing Appeal No.93

of 2017 before the Tribunal, which has now

issued the impugned order.

2.

According to him, the Tribunal has

now allowed the Appeal and set aside the order

of the Arbitrator grating permission to the

Society to withdraw the ARC and file a fresh

one; however, leaving them liberty to amend

the existing ARC. He says that this is

WP(C).No.19538 OF 2019 3

unnecessary and that even if the Society

wanted to amend the ARC, they ought to have

moved an application before the Arbitrator and

the said Authority should have been left

liberty to consider the same in terms of law.

3.

In answer to the afore submissions

made by Shri.Joseph T.John-learned counsel for

the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel

for the respondent-Society, Shri.T.Madhu,

submits that there is nothing wrong in Ext.P10

order because all that the Tribunal has done

is to leave liberty to the petitioner to move

the Arbitrator appropriately for amending the

ARC. He says that this right having been

reserved in Ext.P10 cannot be found to be

incorrect or illegal and therefore, that

Ext.P10 order be left uninterdicted.

4.

I

have

considered

the

afore

submissions and also examined Ext.P10. As is

clear from the said order, the Tribunal has

concluded that the respondent-Society ought

WP(C).No.19538 OF 2019 4

not to have been allowed to withdraw the ARC

with liberty to file a fresh one by the

Arbitrator and therefore, that the ARC itself

ought to be disposed by the said Arbitrator.

However, while doing so, the Tribunal has

'reserved liberty' to the plaintiff/respondent

herein to amend the plaint by incorporating

certain additional pleadings and that

Arbitrator, in turn, has been directed to

consider the ARC thereafter. I find some

force, therefore, in the submissions of

Shri.Joseph T.John, that the Tribunal could

not have dictated to the Arbitrator to allow

the amendments and then to proceed with the

ARC, but ought to have left liberty to the

said Arbitrator to decide whether such

amendments are permissible in law. I am,

therefore, of the view that Ext.P10 order to

that extent cannot be found to be proper.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition,

and set aside that portion of Ext.P10 which

reserves right to the plaintiff to have the

WP(C).No.19538 OF 2019 5

plaint amended; but giving them permission to

make an application for such purpose, which

shall then be considered by the Arbitrator in

terms of law.

I am told by Shri.T.Madhu, learned counsel

for the respondent-Society, that in fact, such

an application has already been filed and I

am, therefore, of the view that the same must

be considered by the Arbitrator as per law,

leading to a decision as to if such amendments

can be allowed or otherwise de hors the

contents of Ext.P10 order.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/7.8.19

WP(C).No.19538 OF 2019 6

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

TRUE COPY OF THE ARC NO.1964/2014 BEFORE

THE ARBITRATOR UNDER THE KERALA CO-

OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT.

EXHIBIT P2

TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30.10.2014

IN ARC NO.1964/2014.

EXHIBIT P3

TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 24.02.2016

IN ARC NO.1964/2014.

EXHIBIT P4

TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16.03.2016

IN ARC NO.1964/2014.

EXHIBIT P5

TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY

PETITIONER

DATED

31.08.2016

ARC

NO.1964/2014.

EXHIBIT P6

TRUE C