IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17758 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KERALA KERAKARSHAKA SAHAKARANA FEDERATION LTD.NO.4370, [AN APEX CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY], KERA TOWER, WATER WORKS COMPOUND, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ,SC,KERALA KERA KARS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SIDHARTH POLYMERS, 1/1-2, IST CROSS, WILSON GARDENS, BANGALORE-560027, REPRESENTED BY IT'S PROPRIETRIX, MR.SINI JOSHI. 2. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 17758 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the condition imposed in Ext.P5 by the second respondent/Tribunal while granting an interim order. The petitioner was the respondent in the arbitration case filed by the first respondent claiming an amount of Rs.11,40,000/- alleged to be the amount due for supply of plastic bottles. The petitioner disputed the liability. However, an award has been passed allowing the claim of the first respondent. 2. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner has challenged the same before the second respondent/Tribunal by filing an appeal No.26 of 2010. The petitioner had also moved a petition for stay of recovery of the amount that was awarded. As per Ext.P5 order, the second respondent has granted an order of stay subject to the condition that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is paid before 15.6.2010. 3. According to the petitioner, the condition in Ext.P5 is onerous and absolutely uncalled for, considering the fact that the petitioner is an apex society that is in a sound financial position. The petitioner therefore prays for permission to pay a reasonable amount as condition for the stay. WPC No.17758/2010 2 4. I notice that Ext.P5 order has been passed without issuing notice to or hearing the first respondent, at the stage of admission. Therefore, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents, in view of the limited relief that is sought for. In the circumstances pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, I feel that the amount directed to be deposited as per Ext.P5 can be reduced to Rs.5,00,000/-. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of modifying the condition stipulated by Ext.P5 order to the limited extent of providing that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- before 30.6.2010 as a condition for getting the benefit of the order of stay granted by the second respondent. K.SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE ) vps WPC No.17758/2010 3 WPC No.17758/2010 4