The interim order of an Arbitral Tribunal is enforceable as a court order, and the District Court cannot require a separate application for its enforcement.

ORDER :

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to partly set aside the Order dated 11.07.2023 passed in IA No.106/2023 in Arbitration No.ST/SF/018/2021 on the file of Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, in so far as directing the Petitioner to file an IA for enforcement of order under sec.17 and appointing an Advocate Commissioner to accompany and assist the Bailiff.

2.Brief facts of the case:

The petitioner/Finance Company represented by its authorised representative had entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with the respondents herein on 12.09.2018 who purchased a vehicle along with its accessories. The total agreement value was Rs.4,50,744/-, payable in 60 monthly installments commencing from 10.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.7,654/- per month. Since the respondents were irregular in paying of installments, the vehicle was recovered from them and sold for Rs.1,85,000/- on 31.01.2020 and in respect of the balance sum of Rs.1,50,035.10, the present arbitration proceedings was initiated against the respondents. The petitioner had moved an application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Concilliation Act seeking for a direction to the respondents to furnish security to the claim amount, failing which, to pass an order of conditional attachment of property, and the Arbitrator by order dated 20.11.2021 in I.A.No.47 of 2021 in ARB.No.ST/SF/018/2021 passed an order of attachment of the property of the respondents, since the respondents failed to furnish security of Rs.1,50,035.10 and the attachment order was forwarded to the District Court for notification. However, the District Court had insisted the petitioner file an application under Section 136 & 151 of CPC and the same was filed in I.A.No.106/2023, wherein the trial Court allowed the application, pursuant to which an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, and he was directed to submit a report of attachment to the Court. Challenging the insistence of filing an application under Section 136 & 151 CPC and the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/Finance Company.

3.Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Arbitral Tribunal shall have the same powers for making orders as a Court for the purpose of and in relation to any proceedings before it and in such circumstances, an order passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the Arbitraor is to be construed as the order of the Court for all purposes and no judicial order is warranted from the District Court for implementing such interim orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of Act, and that the Court is only discharging the ministerial responsibility and it cannot sit as an Appellate Forum over an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. In such circumstances, the District Court exceeds its jurisdiction in directing the petitioner to file an application under Section 136 & 151 of CPC and also appointing an Advocate Commissioner to submit his report of attachment to the Court. He would further emphasise that the interim order issued by the Arbitral Tribunal shall be deemed to be an order of the Court for all purposes, and it shall be enforceable under CPC in the same manner as if it were an order of the Court. He would seek to set aside the impugned order insofar as it is compelling the petitioner to file a separate application for attachment and appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the similarly placed persons with that of the petitioner are also facing problems and on account of that, are facing delays in notification of the orders of the attachment.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the available records.

5.This Court finds that the issue is only between the petitioner and the Court, hence, notice to the respondent is