Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J.
Sigmatic Nidhi Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Frison Anto.M [Deleted], S/o A.O Antony Arakkal - Respondent
OP(C) No. 721 of 2025
Decided on : 11-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADVS.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY, SREEJITH K.
For the Respondent: ADV DILIP J. AKKARA
The court upheld the need for proper arbitration procedures and allowed the petitioner to pursue claims in pending arbitration while maintaining conditional property attachment.
Headnote:
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Execution Petition dismissed due to unilateral appointment of arbitrator not in accordance with the amended Act - Conditional attachment of property ordered pending proceedings in MA (ARB) No. 79 of 2025 - Respondent's claim of existing mortgage to be addressed in pending arbitration proceedings. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - High Court can intervene under Article 227 to ensure justice and expedite proceedings in lower courts. (Paras 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a decree holder, faced dismissal of an execution petition due to improper arbitrator appointment, leading to a conditional property attachment order pending further proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court allows the petitioner to pursue their claims in the pending arbitration matter while maintaining the interim attachment order.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the arbitrator's appointment and the appropriateness of the conditional attachment of property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for adherence to proper arbitration procedures and the urgency of resolving the matter expeditiously in the lower court.
Result: Original Petition disposed of as above.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner herein is the decree holder in Execution Petition E.P No.552 of 2022, before the District Court, Thrissur, which was dismissed as per Ext.P8 order, based on the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, not in accordance with the amended Act.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit and also a petition to lift the attachment already effected by this Court. This Court has already passed an order on 14.03.2025, ordering conditional attachment of the property shown in Ext.P5, for a period of two weeks, subject to furnishing of security. This order is sought to be vacated by the respondents.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 9 petitions are already pending before the Additional District & Sessions Court-III, Thrissur, in MA (ARB) No. 79 of 2025, wherein they have already moved a petition under Section 9 for the attachment of the property. But the petitioner has preferred this O.P(C) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the reason that only the notice was issued and conditional attachment was not granted. When an application is filed under Section 9, it is for the petitioner to get the orders from the same court itself, but taking into consideration the urgency, the interim conditional attachment was granted by this Court. The respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit stating that there is a mortgage existing and without proceeding with the mortgage property, they cannot attach any other property of the petitioner. This question is to be agitated before the Court where MA (Arb) proceedings is pending.
4. Therefore, the original petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to move for orders in MA(Arb) with all the contentions raised in this OP(C). The learned District Judge shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Till such time, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue.
The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
