Limitation For Filing Appeal Under Co-op Societies Act Starts When Order Copy Is Attained, Even If Passed In Presence Of Parties: Kerala HC

Justice K. Babu observed that the defendant's presence at the time of passing the award was not an exception to the general rule that the time to obtain a copy of the award has to be excluded while calculating the limitation period for the appeal.

In the present case, an appeal was filed by the Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd. (petitioner) before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal against an order of the Arbitrator of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

The award was passed in the presence of the petitioner, and the appeal was preferred after 60 days from the date of pronouncement of the award. The tribunal passed an order refusing to entertain the appeal. The writ petition was preferred against the said order.

The Tribunal was of the opinion that the limitation period starts from the date of pronouncement in view of the interpretation given to Rule 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 in C.K.Damodaran v. Kerala Co- operative Tribunal and Others (1980).

According to the judgment, the date of pronouncement of the award in the presence of the parties or the date of communication of the gist of the award to the parties under Rule 68 alone would constitute the starting point of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 82 of the Act.

However, the Court opined that the facts of the aforesaid case are different from the present one since Rule 68 was thereafter amended in 2000. After the amendment, the requirement of sending the gist of the award to the defendant was done away with, but the Rule still mandated that a copy of the award had to be sent to the defendant, whether or not he was present at the time of pronouncement.

The Court also looked into Rule 98, which mandates that a copy of the award has to be attached along with the appeal.

Reading these two rules together, the Court observed as below:

“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.”

The Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the appeal for fresh consideration. It also stated that any coercive proceedings taken against the petitioner would be deferred till a decision is taken by the Tribunal.

It, thus, disposed of the writ petition.

Case No: WP(C) No. 10253 of 2025

Case Title: The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 417

Counsel for the petitioner: Chacko Mathews K., Aiswaria Devi R., Mathews Joseph, Sreekumar P.N.

Counsel for the respondents: Shaji Thomas, Jen Jaison, Thomaskutty Sebastian, C.S.Sheeja, Sr. Government Pleader.