LALITHAMMA Vs. M S CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the widow of one Sri Ayyappan Nair, hereinafter referred to the defaulter, who was the paid Secretary of the 1st respondent Cooperative Society for the period from 1 9 1968 to 30 8 1972 on which date he died. On 20-9-1974 the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the petitioner was to make good a sum of Rs. 10,331 23 stated to have been misappropriated by the defaulter while he was holding the charge of paid Secretary of the Society. To that notice a reply denying the misappropriation alleged is stated to have been sent by the petitioner. Later on, a notice dated 13-10-1974 was issued by the 1st respondent Society to the petitioner. Ultimately the first respondent initiated arbitration proceedings for the recovery of the amount due, before the 2nd respondent with the petitioner as the defendant, she being the legal heir of the deceased defaulter. The gist of the award dated 29-3-1976 passed by the 2nd respondent is stated to have been received by the petitioner on 25-6-1976. Thereafter on 27-9-1976 the petitioner filed an appeal. Later on she had also sent an application for condoning the delay stating the reasons in that regard, The challenge in this writ petition is directed against Ext. P2 order dated 27-1-1977 on Miscellaneous Application No 245/76 passed by the 3rd respondent, the Cooperative Tribunal, Trivandrum.

(2.) Sri V N. Achutha Kurup, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under R.100(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969, the Secretary to the Tribunal had a statutory duty to issue notice to the petitioner and to give her a reasonable opportunity of showing whether the appeal was filed within time. Sub-r.(3) of R.100 reads as follows:

(3.) The counsel for the 1st respondent Society and also the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submitted that on the petitioner's own showing the appeal was preferred out of time and therefore there is no scope for interference in the matter. They also contended for the position that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the appeal or other proceedings before the Arbitrator or the Cooperative Tribunal, and there was no question of condoning the delay in filing the appeal.