9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (8) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Co-operative Societies. The case stood posted to 31-1-1972. When it was taken up for hearing on that date, the second respondent, who was representing the Bank was not present; and there was also no application for adjournment. The petitioner's counsel, who was present, urged for a dismissal of the claim. Accordingly the first respondent dismissed the claim, and passed an award, Ext. P1 dated 31-1-1972, under S. 70 (3) of the Act. The second respondent on behalf of the Bank made an application to the first respondent to set aside the ex parte award. The application was allowed by the first respondent by its order Ext. P3 dated 7-3-1972. This petition has been filed to quash the above order. The only contention urged by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application of R. 99 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1964 which, as pointed out by the learned judge, fully applied to the case. The above observation is only an obiter; and with great respect I am unable to follow it. If a person has a power to demolish a thing, it does not follow from that, he has also the power to restore it. Both are different powers; and the process of exercise of those powers would also be different. 2. In support of his contention that, in the absence of any statutory power the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to decide a case ex parte, counsel cited a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Chinnappan v. I T. Commr., (AIR. 1965 Mad 62). That case related to the jurisdiction of the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a party who fails to adduce evidence to prove his claim. In the case of an arbitration, if the claimant fails to appear before the arbitrator on a day to which the case is posted for hearing, and he has not produced any evidence, the arbitrator can only dismiss the claim, unless he is inclined to adjourn the case and give a further opportunity to the claimant to establish his claim. This is what the first respondent has done in the instant case. Though be dismissed the claim, stating that the claimant failed to appear, he purported to act under S. 70 (3) of the Act; and Ext. P1 is styled an award under the said Section. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent's only remedy against the award was to file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dismissed for default and to the power of a court under O. 9 R. 9 CPC. and that the limited power conferred on him by R. 15 (4) of the Rules under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, is only to decide ex parte in the absence of the parties, and no more. I am inclined to think that the power to restore a case dismissed for default is implied or implicit in the power granted. However I am not expressing a final opinion. The Arbitrator has only allowed the parties an opportunity of prosecuting and contesting the case on the merits; and his order, even if technically without jurisdiction does not warrant interference under Art. 226. I respectfully agree with the last sentence in his Lordship's judgment. The petitioner is trying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
