Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
Kurian Joseph – Appellant
Versus
Georgiana George – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 2305 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Balagopalan, A. Rajagopalan, M.N. Manmadan, M.S. Imthiyaz Ahammed, P. Seena
For the Respondents:
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is extremely limited regarding interim orders passed by an Arbitrator; the primary remedy lies in challenging the final award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration - Interim Order - Challenge under Article 227 - The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked against an interim order passed by an Arbitrator except in exceptional cases. (Para 2)
(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Remedy - The appropriate remedy for a party aggrieved by an interim order of an Arbitrator is to wait until the Award is passed and subsequently file an application under Section 34 for setting aside the Award. (Para 2)
Issues: Whether an Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against an interim order passed by an Arbitrator regarding the submission of a witness list.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EASWARAN S., J.
OP(C) No.2305 of 2026
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2026
JUDGMENT
The claimant in an arbitration proceedings has come up in the Original Petition contending that his request to examine witnesses was declined by the Tribunal on the ground that the witnesses list ought to have been submitted along with the claim statement. .
At the outset itself, this Court finds that the Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be entertained by this Court against an interim order passed by the Arbitrator. In Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. [(2022) 1 SCC 75], the Supreme Court has clearly held that only in exceptional cases can the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India be invoked. The remedy of the petitioner is to wait until the Award is passed and, if so aggrieved, to file an appropriate application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside the Award.
In such circumstances, this Court sees no reason to entertain the Original Petition. Accordingly, the Original Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
