O.N.Krishnan vs State Of Kerala

N. Nagaresh, J.

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner, who was earlier working as Manager of the 4th respondent-Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Limited, Chembu Branch. In these writ petitions, the petitioner challenges Exts.P1 to P5 attachments, the Awards passed by the Arbitration Court and judgments delivered by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal.

The petitioner states that while working as Manager of the Bank, a Board Member of the Bank approached the petitioner and introduced the 5th respondent. He requested the petitioner to do the needful to advance some gold loans to the 5th respondent for her business purpose.

The petitioner arranged several loans on ornaments bought by the 5th respondent. One of the loans was in the name of the petitioner. On 01.06.2002, the 4th respondent filed arbitration cases to realise amount covered by three loans. The case was numbered as ARC No.9/2002. The 3rd respondent-Arbitrator attached four items of property belonging to the petitioner and one property belonging to his wife. The attachments were to secure ₹9,79,854/-. Exts.P1 to P5 are Mahazars prepared in connection with the attachments. The Arbitrator passed Ext.P6 Award in ARC No.9/2002.

The  petitioner  preferred  appeal  before  the  2nd respondent-Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. The petitioner was not in a position to pay fee towards Legal Benefit Fund. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P10 application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to exempt the petitioner from paying the prescribed fee towards Legal Benefit Fund. The petitioner seeks to direct the 2nd respondent to hear Ext.P9 appeal dispensing with the payment of fees towards Legal Benefit Fund.

W.P.(C) No.14880/2021 has been filed with similar pleadings. The Bank filed ARC No.10/2002 and the case was ordered against the petitioner as per Ext.P1 Award. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal before the Tribunal and Ext.P3 application to dispense with payment of fee towards Legal Benefit Fund. By Ext.P4 judgment, the Tribunal confirmed the Award slightly modifying the Decree passed by the Arbitration Court.

In W.P.(C) No.14992/2021, the petitioner states that the Bank filed ARC No.13/2002 alleging that the petitioner has caused loss of ₹43,57,000/- to the Bank. The Arbitration Court passed Ext.P1 Award in ARC No.13/2002. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal. The appeal is not entertained as the fee towards Legal Benefit Fund could not be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks to permit him to proceed with the appeal without paying fee towards Legal Benefit Fund.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 Award in ARC No.12/2002, in W.P.(C) No.15032/2021. Ext.P1 is the Award passed by the Arbitration Court in ARC No.12/2002. Ext.P2 is the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal. In W.P.(C) No.19541/2022, Ext.P1 is the Award in ARC No.8/2002. Ext.P2 is the appeal filed by the petitioner in the Tribunal. Ext.P2 appeal was confirmed by the Tribunal as per Ext.P4 judgment in Appeal No.171/2018.

The argument of the petitioner is that Section 78 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is akin to Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Attachment orders passed without mandatory requirements of law would be null and void. The petitioner is an indigent person. The respondents are duty bound to do the necessary to make applicable the provisions of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

The question whether financial difficulty of a litigant is reason for seeking exemption from payment of court fee to entertain a statutory appeal, came up for consideration before this Court in Jacob C.K. v. State of Kerala and others [2010 (2) KHC 761]. This Court held that there is no statutory provision extending the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings before statutory Tribunals. This Court held that writ court cannot direct the authority/Tribunal to grant exemption from payment of court fee, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to direct the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal to consider his appeals granting relaxation in payment of fees towards Legal Benefit Fund, cannot be accepted.

The petitioner has challenged the Awards passed by the Arbitration Court and judgments passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. Perusing the Awards and judgments and the pleadings in the writ petition, I find that the petitioner has not advanced sufficient grounds to interfere with the Awards and judgments.

In the circumstances, the writ petitions are without any merit. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed.