Mohammedali vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P., J

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash all proceedings leading to the Arbitration Award in ARC No.29/2017 on the file of the 3rd respondent and also to quash Ext.P5 demand notice issued on the basis of the findings in the said arbitration case. It is the case of the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner had obtained a loan from the 4th respondent Bank and that she passed away on 10.06.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner made enquiries after receiving Ext.P5 demand notice, it was learnt that an award has been passed against the petitioner’s late mother without issuing any notice to the petitioner, who is the only legal heir. It is submitted that since the award was passed against the petitioner’s mother after her death and without notice to the legal heir, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 does not dispute the fact that the award in question was issued by the 3rd respondent after the date on which the petitioner’s mother passed away. It is however submitted that the fact that the petitioner’s mother had passed away was not known to the Bank as the petitioner had not informed the Bank about the same. It is submitted that if the award in question is being set aside, the Bank may be permitted to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply would submit that any fresh proceedings may be barred by limitation and the petitioner may be permitted to raise all contentions on merits if any fresh proceedings are initiated by the Bank.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, I am of the view that this writ petition can be allowed, reserving the liberty of the Bank to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law and also making it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all legal contentions, including any contention that the claim of the Bank is barred by limitation, if any fresh proceedings are initiated by the Bank. An award passed against a dead person without the legal heirs being on record cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the award in ARC No.29/2017 on the file of the 3rd respondent is set aside. It is made clear that the setting aside of the award in ARC No.29/2017 will not prevent the Bank from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law. It is also made clear that all contentions of the petitioner, including any plea of limitation can be raised as and when fresh proceedings are initiated. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

The writ petition will stand disposed of as above.