In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has clarified the interpretation of the limitation period for filing appeals under Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, emphasizing that the time required to obtain a copy of the award must be excluded while computing the limitation, even if the award was delivered in the presence of the parties.
Justice K. Babu delivered the judgment on 30th June 2025 in the case titled The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd v. State of Kerala and Anr. [WP(C) No. 10253 of 2025].
The petitioner, a co-operative society, had filed an appeal before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal against an arbitral award issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Changanacherry in ARC No. 207/2020. Although the award was pronounced on 17.08.2024, the appeal was filed on 29.10.2024—beyond the 60-day limitation period.
Read also:- J&K High Court Says ‘No Work, No Pay’ Rule Doesn’t Apply to Illegal Termination, Orders Partial Back Wages
The Tribunal rejected the appeal on the grounds that the award was passed in the presence of the petitioner, relying on the 1980 Division Bench decision in C.K. Damodaran v. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal and Others, which held that the limitation period starts from the date of pronouncement or communication of the gist of the award.
However, the petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in relying on the C.K. Damodaran ruling, as Rule 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 was amended in 2000. The post-amendment rule requires the award copy to be sent to the defendant via registered post, irrespective of their presence during pronouncement.
“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 observed.
Read also:- SC Issues Notice on Plea by 10 Convicts over Delay in Judgments by Jharkhand High Court
The petitioner also referred to Rule 98, which mandates that a certified copy of the award must be submitted along with the appeal. It was emphasized that the need to attach the award with the appeal makes it logical to exclude the time taken to obtain it while calculating limitation.
The Court further took support from the precedent in Thirumarayoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Mathai and Others (1988 KHC 159), where it was held that the time taken to obtain a certified copy must be excluded.
Acknowledging the legislative change and practical necessity, the High Court concluded that the earlier position laid out in C.K. Damodaran does not apply to post-2000 cases, and therefore, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Explains Mandate of Section 223(2) BNSS in Handling Complaints Against Public Servants
“The facts of the present case are different from the facts considered by the Division Bench in C.K. Damodaran… It only stands to reason that the time taken for obtaining the copy of the award should be excluded.”
Accordingly, the Kerala High Court set aside the Tribunal's order (Ext. P4) and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The Court also directed that any coercive action against the petitioner be deferred until the Tribunal decides the matter anew.
The writ petition was thus disposed of, reinforcing a procedural safeguard under the Co-operative Societies framework.
Case No: WP(C) No. 10253 of 2025
Case Title: The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd v. State of Kerala and Anr.
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.