The petitioner was aggrieved with Ext.P1 notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, 4th respondent availed a loan from the 3rd respondent society, in which the petitioner was a surety. The petitioner's specific contention was that, the 4th respondent having not satisfied the loan amount, the 3rd respondent has issued proceedings against the petitioner, more specifically for deduction of salary for which no notice was issued as mandated under the proviso to Section 37(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. 2. The petitioner, though, raises a contention that, no notice was issued before the deduction of salary, however, produced Ext.P1 and does not have any explanation to offer in the writ petition as to how he obtained Ext.P1.
W.P.(C) No. 13890 of 2013 (I) 2
3. In any event, the question of notice need not be considered at this stage, on looking at the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit; wherein he has specifically stated that loan account No.BAL - 46019 as is specified in Ext.P1, is with respect to a third party, one another employee called Sukumaran. An award is also produced as Ext.R3(a) where the 3rd respondent had approached the Arbitrator under Section 69 and obtained an award, in which the petitioner also is a party. Admittedly, no challenge has been made from Ext.R3(a).
4. It is also submitted on behalf of the 3rd respondent that, in any event Ext.P1 has not been implemented since the loan is being serviced by the original borrower. It is also to be noticed that, despite a counter affidavit being placed on record as early as on 02.06.2013, specifically alleging that the concerned borrower has not been impleaded herein, the petitioner has not taken any W.P.(C) No. 13890 of 2013 (I) 3 steps to implead the said borrower. One another person is impleaded herein, who is also said to be a borrower, but unconcerned with the deduction of salary agitated herein.
5. It is also to be noticed that, the liability of sureties is co- extensive to that of the original borrower and the creditor would have the rights to proceed either against the original borrower or against the sureties. The deduction in salary threatened, also is not effected is the contention of the 3rd respondent.
For all the above reasons, there is absolutely no merit in the above writ petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed.
AMV/14/10/ Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE