M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd., is the Revision petitioner herein. It had entered into a loan agreement with the first respondent herein on 07.10.2014. A vehicle was hypothecated in favour of the Revision petitioner as the first charge. The second respondent herein is the guarantor. The loan amount of Rs.7,38,224/- was repayable in 47 monthly installments. The first respondent, however, committed default. As a result, the hypothecated vehicle was seized on 30.08.2016 and sold. Even after the appropriation of the sale proceeds, the amount due under the contract was Rs.2,37,932/-. Since the first respondent did not pay the same despite demand, arbitration proceedings were initiated as per Article 22 of the loan agreement. A Claim statement was filed on 19.04.2017 before Sri. V.K. Thirunavukkarasu, a retired District Judge, who was nominated as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute/claim between the parties.

2. The Sole Arbitrator passed an interim order dated 26.07.2017 under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, attaching the property of the respondents as they failed to furnish security as ordered by the Arbitral Tribunal on 31.05.2017. A copy of the said order was communicated by the Arbitrator to the learned Principal District Judge, Karur District, for enforcement. The interim order passed by him was also enclosed.

3. After the receipt of the aforesaid order from the Arbitrator, the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, by communication bearing D.No.3038 dated 06.09.2017, informed him that an Arbitrator is not competent to pass an order of attachment of properties which are not the subject matter of the arbitration. The relevant paragraphs of the said communication read as under :-

“I wish to bring to your kind notice that this Court received a copy of the order passed by you in I.A.No.27/2017 in Arbitration case No. VKT/SF/93/2017, dated 26.07.2017 you have made a request to nominate a Senior Bailiff to execute the warrant of attachment of property issued by you. You have stated in the order that under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Arbitral Tribunals have all the powers of Civil Court and therefore, the Tribunal is empowered to order attachment of the property before the final orders.

Under the amended Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Arbitral Tribunals are empowered to pass orders as an interim measure of protection in respect of four specific matters. It is nowhere provided in Section 17 of the Act that an Arbitral Tribunal is empowered to attach properties which are not the subject matter of the arbitration. This Court is of the opinion that you are not competent to pass such orders under Section 17 of the Act.”

4. After receipt of the said communication, the Arbitrator sent a reply on 29.11.2017. Since no further action appears to have been taken, the revision petitioner has chosen to move this Court questioning the communication dated 06.09.2017, whereby the learned Principal District Judge declined to give effect to the interim order passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

5. Considering the scope of this civil revision petition, notice to the respondents stands dispensed with.

6. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner.

7. The Central Act 26 of 1996 is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards as also to define the law relating to conciliation and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2004) 3 SCC 155 (Firm Ashok Traders V. Gurumukh Das Saluja), this statute is a long leap in the direction of the alternate dispute resolution systems. It is based on UNCITRAL Model. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether cont