The arbitral tribunal lacks authority to directly impose an attachment on property without enforcement through civil court channels.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2025)

The petitioner purchased 1 are & 86 sq.mts. and 2 ares & 38 sq.mts. landed property on 13.12.2017, from the 5^th respondent vide Sale Deed No. 2706 of 2017 comprised in Re. Sy. No. 332/ 9 situated at Perinjanam Village Kodunganllur Taluk. The petitioner is having absolute ownership over the property, and has been paying the land tax of the property. When the petitioner decided to sell his property, he obtained Ext.P3 certificate of encumbrance on the afore described property for a period of 30 years commencing from 01.01.1995 from the 2^nd respondent. Upon receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner came to know that the property owned by him since 2017 is attached by an order passed by a Sole Arbitrator in I. A. No. 1 of 2022 in C. P. No. 9 of 2022, which is an issue between 4^th & 5^th respondents. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to delete the entries of attachment that are illegally entered into the certificate of encumbrance and such other records of the aforementioned property;

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 2nd & 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner to sell his aforementioned property without any hindrances”

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Saneesha M.S and Ors. [2024 SCC online Ker 5233] wherein, it was held as follows:

“10. The question is what is the remedy then available for a third party who is aggrieved by an order of attachment. So long as the order is not enforced, the same is not self workable. If it is enforced through a civil court, necessarily, the third party, who is aggrieved can raise his objection against the enforcement or even after the enforcement, the third party can very well raise an objection as against the enforcement by claiming that the property belongs to him. The Code of Civil Procedure provides necessary mechanism for the third party to raise a claim or title over the property. We are of the view that the writ petitioner -Saneesha M S, is not deprived of any remedy as the Code of Civil Procedure safeguard such interest of the third parties. The law is very clear that the tribunal cannot exercise sovereign function of enforcement and such power is vested with civil court. Therefore, writ petitioner - Saneesha M S can very well resist the enforcement or can raise a claim before the civil court when an order is sought to be enforced. So long as it is not enforced, no right of the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is deprived of to enjoy the property in accordance with law, if the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is the real owner of the property. As we noted earlier, we have not decided the maintainability of such challenge in appeal before civil court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. That will have to be worked out independently as it is not for us to observe whether such appeal is maintainable or not in this proceedings.

11. On conclusion, we are of the view that the arbitral tribunal usurped the power of civil court by directly intimating the order of attachment to the Sub Registrar and the Village Officer. That direction will have to be nullified. Accordingly, we nullify the direction. The Sub Registrar or any revenue officials is not bound by any orders passed by the arbitral tribunal unless such an order is enforced through the civil court. We make it clear that the Sub Registrar or any revenue officials shall not act on the direct intimation of the arbitral tribunal regarding attachment unless and until it is enforced through a civil court. We direct the learned Government Pleader to communicate this o