SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P., J
Manu Sebastian – Appellant
Versus
Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12828 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.RASMI NAIR T.
For the Respondents: SRI. ATHUL SHAJI (SC), SMT. SILPA N.P (GP)

Court directs provision of arbitration award copy to enable challenge despite no-notice claim under Co-operative Societies Act.

Headnote:Under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the bank initiated arbitration proceedings on default of credit facilities and obtained an award. Petitioner claims no notice of arbitration was served and guarantor had deceased, with demand notices issued to legal heirs. Court finds petitioner sought copy of award via Ext.P6 to challenge it. Issue framed as whether petitioner entitled to award copy for challenging arbitration award. Ratio: Considering limited relief sought and no notice claims, court directs provision of documents. Writ petition disposed directing first respondent to consider Ext.P6 and provide award copy within four weeks, enabling legal challenge.

Table of Content
1. counsel heard for all parties. (Para 2)
2. direct first respondent to provide arbitration award copy for challenge. (Para 3)

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner availed credit facilities from the Kerala State Co- operative Bank Limited through which Njeezhoor Branch, Kottayam. On default being committed, the bank initiated proceedings underSection 69of theKerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969(hereinafter referred to as the “1969 Act”) and obtained an award determining the liability of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no notice of the Arbitration Proceedings was ever served on the petitioner. It is also submitted that the guarantor had passed away and that a demand notice had been issued to the legal heirs. It is further submitted that, thereafter, no further notice was received in the Arbitration proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner has now filed Ext.P6 before the first respondent seeking copy of the award so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the award in accordance with the law.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Kerala State Co-operative Bank and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, and considering the limited nature of the relief now sought for by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 and to provide a copy of the award and any other documents in relation to the arbitration that may be required by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, it is for the petitioner to challenge the award in accordance with the law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top