Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16700
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE VEERANAKAVU WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT (SOUTHERN) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 35925 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.P.N.MOHANAN, SMT.AMRUTHA SURESH, SRI.C.P.SABARI, SHRI.GILROY ROZARIO
For the Respondents: SHRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM, SRI.G.RAJEEV, SRI.NAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.SIDHARTH G., SRI.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP
The court recognizes the authority of the Arbitration Court to proceed without specific document production, emphasizing adherence to procedural fairness.
Headnote:This writ petition concerns an application by the petitioner for directions to the Arbitration Court to proceed with the arbitration case without requiring the production of the original document, Ext.P6. Following an interim direction by this Court, the 2nd respondent reported that the arbitration process is proceeding along with the final hearing of the case. The Court observes that it lacks jurisdiction for further orders due to the ongoing arbitration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's application for arbitration proceeding without original document. (Para 1) |
| 2. the arbitration court is to proceed per previous order. (Para 2 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court through the captioned writ petition seeking a direction to the Arbitration Court o proceed with the arbitration case without insisting the production of original of Ext.P6, which is stated to be not available with the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent herein.
3. On 11.09.2025, this Court passed the following order:-
“The counsel for the respondents seeks time.
In the meanwhile there will be an interim direction to the Arbitration Court to proceed with Exhibit P8 arbitration Case without insisting on the production of original of Exhibit P6 document. Final orders shall not be issued until further orders.”
4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent says that, pursuant to the afore order, Ext.P8 arbitration case has been proceeded with by the Arbitration Court and hearing is also over and only the award requires to be pronounced.
In the view of the afore submission, this writ petition would stand closed recording the submission made as above.
Sd/-
