MITHIRMALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs. SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 order of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in Revision Petition No.7 of 2023. R.P No.7 of 2023 was a revision petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 challenging Ext.P1 award obtained by the petitioner bank in proceedings under Sec. 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the '1969 Act'). A reading of Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal allowed R.P No.7 of 2023 on the finding that the petitioner bank had not initiated proceedings under Sec. 69 of the 1969 Act within the period of limitation prescribed by the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 69 of the 1969 Act.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 69 of the 1969 Act was inserted by the Kerala Act No. 8 of 2013 with effect from 14/2/2013. It is submitted that, from the date on which the provision was inserted, the Government has, in exercise of its powers under Sec. 101 of the 1969 Act, issued notifications exempting all co-operative societies from the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 69 of the 1969 Act. It is submitted that though the provisions of the notifications issued by the Government under Sec. 101 of the 1969 Act were brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal took the view that the statutory provision cannot be suspended by circular. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to notice the provisions of Sec. 101 of the 1969 Act, which permit the Government to exempt societies from the operation of any provision in the 1969 Act. It is submitted that, since the statutory notification itself was not challenged by the respondents 1 and 2, the Tribunal could not have held that the claim raised by the petitioner bank before the arbitrator was barred by limitation.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that even if this Court were to conclude that the claim of the petitioner bank was not barred by limitation on account of the notification issued by the Government under Sec. 101 of the 1969 Act, respondents 1 and 2 had raised several other contentions before the Tribunal. It is submitted that, if the writ petition filed by the bank is to be allowed on the ground that the claim is not barred by limitation, the revision petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 must be restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.