VALACHENAI CO-OPERATIVE STORES , Appellant , and A. VELLACUDDY, Respondent

043-NLR-NLR-V-56-VALACHENAI-CO-OPERATIVE-STORES-Appellant-and-A.-VELLACUDDY-Respondent.pdf

PULLE J.—Valachenai Co-operative Stores v. Vellacuddy
17
1954
Present: Pulle J. and Swan J.VALACHENAI CO-OPERATIVE STORES, Appellant, andA. VELLACUDDV, Respondent
.S'. C. 158—D. G. Batticaloa, 521 (Special)
Cooperative Societies Ordinance—Dispute between co-operative society atid an officer—Arbitrator** award—Cannot be set aside for loo technical reason.
Defendant was the manager of a co-operative society. A dispute betweenhim und the co-operative society was referred to arbitration, but the arbitra-tor's award itself did not state what olTic© the defendant held under thei:o-o]»urnt ivc s«>«*ioty.
Held, that the more failuro to describe the defendant in the award as theox-manager of the co-operative society did not make the award bad on theface of it..
./^.PPEAL from an order of the District Court, Batticaloa.
E. It. .S'. It. Ooonutmswamy, for the plaintiff appellant.
No appearance for the defendant respondent.
Cur. adv vult.
March 8, 1954. Pui.le J.—
The rospondont to tliis appeal was at all material times the managerof a Co-operativo Society who are the plaiiitiffs-appollants. At the re-quest of the Society a dispute between them and the respondent in regardto a deficiency of money was referred under the Co-operative SocietiesOrdinance to arbitration and an award dated 13th June,-1951, was madebyatho arbitrator directing him to pay to the Society the sum ofIts. 2,104.26. This award was filed and made a docreo of Court and certainproceedings in execution were thereafter taken. The respondent thenappeared and took various objections to the award. The appeal isfrom an order holding that the award was bad.
172
Kadirgamadas v. Suppiah
I should like to state that the respondent did not appear and answerthe claim made against him when summoned by the arbitrator. It wasno doubt open to him to have ignored the summons if the arbitrator hadassumed a jurisdiction which he did not possess. It has however beenestablished and the Judge specifically finds that the arbitrator hadjurisdiction to inquire into this dispute between the appellants and therespondent and that it was competent for him to have made the award inquestion. When the notice of the bill of costs of the appellant’s Proctorwas served the respondent did not care to appear and the only point ofany substance on which he has succeeded is that in the award itsolf it isnot stated what offico the respondent held under the Co-operative Society.In my opinion a mere failure to describe the respondent in the award asthe ex-manager of the Co-operative Societey did not make the award badon. the face of it. When in all other respects the proceedings before theaward and the award itself are good, except for the omission to describein the award tho relationship in which the respondent at one time stood tothe appellants, it would bo too technical to hold that the award is badex facie. I would accordingly set aside the order under appeal with costsboth here and below which together are fixed at Rs. 157-50.
Swan J.—I agree.
Order set aside.