Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ALICE ETTICKAL versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ALICE ETTICKAL v. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WP(C) No. 32793 of 2006(D) [2006] RD-KL 3014 (11 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32793 of 2006(D)

1. ALICE ETTICKAL,
... Petitioner

2. K.S.SIMON, KOONAMMACKEL HOUSE,

3. TOMY AUGUSTINE,

4. SHIJU VADAKKEMALA,

5. JOHN PARAYIL, PARAYIL HOUSE,

Vs

1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
... Respondent

2. MANIYARANKUDY KSHEEROLPADAKA

3. T.T.VINCENT, THAKARAPARAPILLY HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE DAVIS

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

Dated :11/12/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

W.P.(C). 32793/2006 Dated this the 11th day of December, 2006

JUDGMENT

The writ petitioners are the members of the Board of the second respondent, Co-operative Society. They had been found defaulters to the Vazhathoppu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.E 202, Idukki, by the Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, as per its award dated 7.7.2006 in A.R.C.No.71/2003. Therefore, they were disqualified to be elected or to continue as members of the Board of management of the second respondent, Society.

2. Under Section 82(1)(a) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969, in short 'the Act', appeals to the tribunal, by any aggrieved person from the award of the Co-operative Arbitration Court, could be preferred. Therefore, the writ petitioners has to approach the Arbitration Tribunal.

3. However, the writ petitioners submits, as averred in Paragraph 2 of the writ petition, that the W.P.(C).32793/2006 2 Arbitration Court had issued the certified copy of the award to the third respondent only on 1.12.2006. When the third respondent produced the copy of the said award before the second respondent, society, the writ petitioners came to know of it, and there is hasty action by the second respondent to remove the writ petitioners from the post, on superseding them with administrators. Therefore, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that sufficient time may be granted, so that the writ petitioners could approach the Arbitration Tribunal, challenging the award passed by the Arbitration Court.

4. In the above facts situation, I direct that there shall be no action against the writ petitioners by the respondents 1 and 2 for a period of three weeks, so as to enable them to resort to appeal before the Arbitration Tribunal, as per the Act. The writ petition is disposed of as above. J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.