NEELAKANTAN Vs. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four appeals presented by the plaintiffs in four suits, O.S. Nos. 25 and 28 of 1122, 9 of 1125 and 31 of 1123 respectively. The plaintiff in O.S. 31 of 1125 and 9 of 1125 is the same person. The suits related to an award (Ext. A) by an arbitrator, appointed under the Travancore Cooperative Societies Act, V of 1112. What occasioned the reference was this: On 6.12.1119 a shortage of cash of the society to the tune of Rs. 4,633 was found. The liability for the missing cash had to be fixed. The committee of the society by resolution marked Ext. A-5 in Ext. A requested the intervention of the Registrar. The 4th defendant was the President of the Society. The plaintiff in O.S. 25 was the Secretary and the other two plaintiffs were other office-bearers of the society, all being members. Part of the amount was brought in first in the name of the 4th defendant which was afterwards distributed and credited in the names of the three plaintiffs. The relief asked in three of the suits is setting aside the award, Ext. A, which found the plaintiffs liable in certain specific amounts so as to make up the total of the cash that was found short. The primary liability to make good the amount was fastened upon the plaintiffs and should the amount be not recovered from them ultimate liability was cast upon the 4th defendant, the President. The plaintiff in O.S 31 of 1123 has filed another suit O.S. 9 of 1125 for return of the money which has been credited in his name as aforesaid.

(2.) The court below found that S.57(2) of the Act which provides:

(3.) The only document filed in the case is the award Ext. A. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged mainly that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to enter upon the arbitration and pass an award. This contention is elaborated by adding that the reference to arbitration must be made by the Registrar under S.56 which has not been done. It is further contended that the Registrars jurisdiction to refer should arise on a reference of the dispute made to him by the committee of the society which has also not been done in this case. It is next contended that it is only a dispute within the meaning of S. 56 of the Act that can be referred to arbitration and there has not been any such dispute in this case. It is lastly contended that the Travancore Arbitration Act XI of 1115, applies to the case and that for a proper reference to arbitration concurrence of both parties thereto is essential.