HIGH COURT OF KERALA
,
AGRO INDUS CREDITS LTD – Appellant
Versus
NITHIN B.VETTOM – Respondent
RFA (MISC.)/5/2021
Arbitration - Appeal - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Section 17) - The court addressed the issue of improper attachment of properties based on an arbitrator's order, providing interpretations of the relevant legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a non-banking financial institution, invoked an arbitration clause in a loan agreement after default by the borrower. Following a temporary attachment order by the arbitrator, the district court’s subsequent order was challenged regarding the attachment of properties allegedly executed after said order.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the district court's lifting of the property attachment was based on an improper claim of fraud by the appellant, and if the inclusion of properties in the attachment request was a mistake.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the classification of properties for attachment must be accurately reflected in motions filed, and any questions regarding potential fraud require additional factual determinations through further evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, remitting the matter to the lower court for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
This appeal, filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule
1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the 1st respondent in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in I.A.No.6743 of 2019, in C.M.A(Arb).No.1159 of 2019, who is the applicant in C.M.A(Arb.)No.1159 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Court-II, Ernakulam.
2. The appellant is a non-banking financial institution.
The 2nd respondent herein availed a loan for Rs.2 Crores from the appellant on 09.02.2017. In that loan transaction respondents 3 to 5 stood as guarantors. An agreement was executed on 09.02.2017 creating equitable mortgage of the immovable properties owned by the borrower and also the guarantors. When there was default in repayment of loan amount, the appellant invoked the arbitration clause in the aforesaid agreement and referred the dispute for arbitration before the sole Arbitrator. Along with the reference, the appellant filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , seeking attachment of the immovable properties of the borrower and the guarantors. The Arbitrator passed an interim order dated 06.05.2019, whereby the borrower and the guarantors were directed to show cause why security should not be furnished for a sum of Rs.2,80,93,537/- on or before 29.05.2019. In the meanwhile, the properties of respondents 2 and 4 therein, described in schedule Nos.1 to 4 annexed to the application for attachment were, conditionally attached for the said amount. 3. For enforcing the interim order passed by the Arbitrator, the appellant approached the District Court, Ernakulam by filing C.M.A(Arb.)No.1159 of 2019, invoking the provisions under (2) of the Act. The court below allowed that application and effected attachment. Subsequently, the 1st respondent herein filed claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Order XXXVIII Rules 8 and 9 of the Code in respect of a portion of the land covered by the attachment schedule item No.6, stating that he has purchased the same from the 3rd respondent, before the order of attachment of the Arbitrator. Hence the 1st respondent sought for an order for lifting the order of attachment over his property. Four others have filed similar claim petitions in respect of the property covered under attachment schedule item No.6.
4. The appellant opposed the aforesaid applications by filing objection, contending that the respondents have colluded each other and on getting the knowledge of the order passed by the Arbitrator, sale deed was executed in favour of the 1st respondent and four others on the same day, by way of five sale deeds to defeat the interest of the appellant.
5. Before the court below the 1st respondent and other four claim petitioners challenged the attachment over their properties on the ground that the attachment has been effected after the execution of the sale deeds. That was the only contention raised in their objection. However, at the time of final hearing, the court below found that the interim order passed by the Arbitrator was only to attach the first four items of properties scheduled therein and not the properties covered by the claim petition. According to the appellant it was only a mistake. The appellant pointed out before the court below that though the Arbitrator ordered attachment of only the first four items of properties, that order was accompanied by six schedules, including the property subsequently purchased by the 1st respondent and four others. That interim order was silent about the exclusion of the properties scheduled as item Nos.5 and 6 in the application for attachment. Therefore, the appellant was under the impression that the Arbitrator has passed an interim order as prayed for and hence approached the court below to implement the order of attachment by showing six items of properties.
6. After considering the rival contentions the court below allowed I.A.No.2 of 2020 in I.A.No.6743 of 2019 in C.M.A(Arb.)No.1159 of 2019 a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.