IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1946 APPEAL (ICA) NO. 1 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP(ICA) NO.1 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:

SHARATH THAZHATHE VEEDU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O MUTHUKRISHNA VARIER, VARANATTU HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 683542 BY ADVS.

SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR BENNY ANTONY PAREL PRAMITHA AUGUSTINE NAZRIN BANU IRINE MATHEW RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT S :

1 CONCILIUM MARINE GROUP AB, PO BOX 502813105 NAKA, STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ADITI DINENDRA KAMATH, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O DINENDRA ANANT KAMATH, RESIDING AT J, 6/5, JAL MANGAL DEEP, BANGUR NAGAR GAREGAON WEST, MUMBAI, PIN - 400090

2 CONCEJO AB PO BOX PO BOX 502813105 NAKA, STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ADITI DINENDRA KAMATH, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O DINENDRA ANANT KAMATH, RESIDING AT J, 6/5, JAL MANGAL DEEP, BANGUR NAGAR GAREGAON WEST, MUMBAI, PIN - 400090 BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI THIS APPEAL (INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 04.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

In this appeal, the appellant impugns judgment dated

13.06.2024 of a learned Single Judge in OP(ICA) No.1/2023. Briefly stated, the original petition was filed under Section 2(1)(e), 2(2), and Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”), seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent and its men or agents from alienating or encumbering the petition schedule properties or creating any document or conveyance in respect of those properties before the satisfaction of the Arbitral Award dated 30.01.2023 in S.C.C Arbitration V2020/199 of the Arbitral Tribunal, Sweden.

2. Inasmuch as the facts leading to the filing of the Arbitration OP are enumerated in detail in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, we do not choose to reiterate those facts in this judgment. Suffice to state that, the Section 9 petition before the learned Single Judge was filed at a point in time when there was an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in Sweden against the appellant herein, that, while dismissing the claim preferred by the appellant invoking an arbitration clause by stating that there was no valid agreement based on which the appellant could have initiated arbitration proceedings in Sweden, also imposed costs quantified in Swedish Krona’s Euros and in GBP Sterling, the total amount of which would roughly be the equivalent of Rs.12 Crores INR. The respondents had moved this Court under Section 9 of the Act, essentially to secure their interest in realising the aforesaid amount of approximately Rs.12 Crores from the appellant herein while enforcing the award in India.

3. The learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned in this appeal, found that the respondents had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction for a limited period of six months or till the filing of an appropriate application by the respondents before the competent court for enforcement of the Arbitral Award, whichever is earlier. The injunction was essentially aimed at preventing the appellant herein from alienating or encumbering the petition schedule property or creating any document or conveyance in respect of those properties.

When this matter came up for hearing, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Anil Xavier appearing for the respondents that during the pendency of this appeal, an execution petition has also been filed before this Court as EP(ICA) No.1/2024, in which an injunction has been granted by this Court restraining the appellant herein from alienating the property, on similar lines as the injunction granted by the Single Judge in the impugned judgment. Taking note of the said submission of the learned Senior Counsel a