Time Taken To Obtain Award Copy Must Be Excluded For Calculating Limitation For Co-op Society Appeals: Kerala High Court - 2025-06-30

Law Updates Made Simple.

Time to Obtain Award Copy Must Be Excluded from Limitation Period for Co-op Appeals: Kerala HC

ERNAKULAM: In a significant ruling clarifying the procedural aspects of cooperative law, the Kerala High Court has held that the time taken to obtain a certified copy of an arbitrator's award must be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal. Justice K. Babu set aside an order by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, emphasizing the mandatory requirements introduced by the 2000 amendment to the KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES .

Case Background

The Changanacherry Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society (the petitioner) challenged an order from the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal which had dismissed its appeal as time-barred. The Society had filed an appeal against an arbitrator's award dated 17.08.2024. The appeal was filed on 29.10.2024, beyond the statutory 60-day limitation period prescribed under Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

The Tribunal, relying on the 1980 Division Bench judgment in C.K. Damodaran v. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal , had concluded that since the award was passed in the presence of the petitioner, the limitation period began from the date of the award itself, making the appeal delayed.

Arguments of the Parties

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Tribunal's reliance on the C.K. Damodaran precedent was misplaced. It was contended that the said judgment was based on the pre-amended Rule 68 of the KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES , 1969. The key arguments were:

1. Post-Amendment Change: The amended Rule 68 (post-2000) makes it mandatory to communicate a copy of the award to the defendant by registered post, irrespective of their presence when the award is pronounced. This, the petitioner argued, shows a legislative intent to change the starting point of limitation.
2. Mandatory Filing Requirement: Rule 98 of the Rules mandates that a certified copy of the award must be filed along with the appeal memorandum. This requirement inherently necessitates excluding the time taken to procure the said copy.
3. Supporting Precedent: The petitioner cited Thirumarayoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Mathai , where the court held that it stands to reason that the time for obtaining the copy of the award should be excluded.

The respondent, however, maintained that the law laid down in C.K. Damodaran continued to govern the field.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice K. Babu undertook a comparative analysis of Rule 68 before and after its 2000 amendment. The Court noted a crucial distinction: - Pre-amended Rule 68: Required communicating a gist of the award only if the defendant was not present at the time of its delivery. - Amended Rule 68: Mandates that a copy of the award shall be communicated to the defendants via registered post, removing the exception for presence.

The Court observed, "In the 2000 amendment, the legislature consciously avoided the non-requirement of sending the gist of the award to the defendant if he is present in the open court at the time of pronouncement of the award."

Accepting the petitioner's contentions, the High Court held that the facts of the present case were distinct from those in C.K. Damodaran due to the legislative changes. The combined effect of the amended Rule 68 and the mandate of Rule 98 (requiring a copy for appeal) led the court to a clear conclusion.

In a pivotal excerpt, the judgment states: > "In view of the mandate of amended Rule 68 and Rule 98 of the Rules, this Court is of the view that the time taken for obtaining copy of the award should have been excluded for computing the period of limitation in filing the appeal."

Final Decision

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order (Ext.P4) and remitted the appeal back to the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal for fresh consideration on its merits. The Court also ordered that any coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner be deferred until the Tribunal re-decides the matter. This judgment provides crucial clarity for litigants in the cooperative sector, ensuring that procedural requirements do not unfairly curtail their right to appeal.