Limitation Begins From Receipt Of Award Copy Under Co-op Act | Kerala High Court Says Even Presence During Pronouncement Doesn’t Trigger Appeal Period
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice K. Babu set aside an order passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The court concluded that the period taken to obtain a copy of the award should have been excluded while computing the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Accordingly, the impugned tribunal order was quashed and the matter was directed to be reconsidered on merits. The High Court also ordered that any coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall remain deferred until the Tribunal renders a new decision.
Justice K. Babu stated that the amended Rule 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, mandates the communication of the copy of the award to the parties by registered post regardless of their presence at the time of pronouncement. The court held that the tribunal had erred in computing the limitation period solely from the date of award, which was pronounced in the presence of the petitioner. In light of Rule 98, which requires a copy of the award to be submitted with the appeal, the court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the time spent obtaining the award copy should be excluded.
The writ petition arose from a dispute concerning the limitation period for filing an appeal against an award passed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner, The Changanacherry Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., challenged Ext.P4, an order dated 31.12.2024 issued by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal No. 330/2024. The award in question, dated 17.08.2024, was passed in A.R.C. No. 207/2020 by an arbitrator attached to the office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Changanacherry.
The petitioner filed the appeal on 29.10.2024. The statutory limitation period under Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for filing an appeal is 60 days from the date of the award. The Tribunal held that since the award was passed in the presence of the petitioner, the limitation period commenced from the date of the award itself.
The petitioner contested this finding by relying on the amendments made to Rule 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules in 2000, and on Rule 98 of the same Rules. According to the petitioner, these provisions collectively mandate that the time taken to obtain the certified copy of the award be excluded when calculating the limitation period.
To support this claim, the petitioner submitted various documents, including Exhibit P2, a delivery manifest dated 13.09.2024, and Exhibit P2(a), an extract from the Society’s inward register, to demonstrate the timeline of communication. The petitioner further relied on judicial precedents, including Thirumarayoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Mathai and Others (1988 KHC 159), to substantiate the argument that the Tribunal ought to have excluded the time spent in securing the certified copy of the award.
In contrast, the second respondent argued that the decision in C.K. Damodaran v. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal and Others (1980 KLT 520), governed the issue, asserting that the limitation period began from the date of pronouncement of the award, as it was delivered in the presence of the petitioner.
The principal dispute centered on whether the provisions of Rule 68 as amended in 2000, and Rule 98, warranted an exclusion of the period used to obtain the award copy, regardless of whether the party was present at the time of the award’s pronouncement.
The court noted that "Rule 68 of the Rules prior to the amendment in 2000" provided for sending a gist of the award to defendants by post only if they were not present at the time of pronouncement. However, the court stated that "Rule 68 of the Rules (after 2000 amendment) ... mandates that the copy of the award/order shall be communicated to the defendants also by registered post."
Justice K. Babu observed that "even if the award was passed in the presence of the defendant, a copy of the award is to be mandatorily sent or to be delivered." The judgment recorded that this change was indicative of the legislature's intention to alter the mode and effect of communication.
The court further examined Rule 98 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, which mandates that a certified copy of the award be filed along with the appeal. On this basis, the court reasoned: "the safer and more correct view would be that the time taken for obtaining the certified or attested copy of the order, decision or award, appealed against, is bound to exclude while reckoning the period of limitation for filing appeal."
In support of this interpretation, the judgment cited the judgement in Thirumarayoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Mathai and Others, wherein the court held: "it only stands to the reason that the time taken for obtaining the copy of the award should be excluded."
Justice K. Babu recorded that the Tribunal’s reliance on the decision in C.K. Damodaran was misplaced because that case dealt with the unamended Rule 68. The court stated: "The facts of the present case are different from the facts considered by the Division Bench in C.K. Damodaran... the Division Bench pronounced the judgment in the context of the pre-amended Rule 68 of the Rules."
The court thus found that the Tribunal had not taken into account the amended legal position and that its approach was not in line with the current statutory requirements.
Justice K. Babu held: "In view of the mandate of amended Rule 68 and Rule 98 of the Rules, this Court is of the view that the time taken for obtaining copy of the award should have been excluded for computing the period of limitation in filing the appeal."
Accordingly, the High Court ordered: "Ext.P4 award stands set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh, in the light of the principles discussed above."
Additionally, the court directed: "Any coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall stand deferred till a decision is taken by the Tribunal."
The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri. Chacko Mathews K., Smt. Aiswaria Devi R., Shri. Mathews Joseph, Shri. Sreekumar P.N.
For the Respondents: Sri. Shaji Thomas, Sri. Jen Jaison, Shri. Thomaskutty Sebastian, Smt. C.S. Sheeja, Senior Government Pleader
Case Title: The Changanacherry Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:47313
Case Number: WP(C) No. 10253 of 2025
Bench: Justice K. Babu
