An arbitral tribunal's direct communication regarding attachment is ineffective without enforcement through civil court.

BASANT BALAJI J ======================

W.P. (C) No. 46743 of 2025 ========================

Dated 18^th day of December 2025 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of 4.36 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 43/8A1 and 43/8A2 of Pallippuram Village, Alappuzha District, falling within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar Office, Panavally. A third party had availed a personal loan of ₹30,000/- from the 3rd respondent company, which is engaged in the business of granting loans on hypothecation and guarantee basis. The petitioner stood as a guarantor for the said loan in terms of the loan agreement executed between the parties. Due to financial difficulties, the borrower defaulted in repayment of certain instalments, whereupon the 3rd respondent initiated arbitration proceedings in accordance with the agreement. The dispute was referred to a sole arbitrator in Arbitration Reference No. 538 of 2023.In an interlocutory application filed by the 3rd respondent, an interim order was passed on

08.12.2023 permitting conditional attachment of the petitioner’s property.

Pursuant thereto, the said order was communicated to the Sub Registrar Office, Panavally, and the Village Officer, Pallippuram, directing them to record the attachment in the registration and revenue records. Consequently, the attachment entry came to be reflected in the encumbrance and revenue records. Upon discharge of the entire liability, the petitioner and the borrower approached respondents 1 and 2 seeking removal of the attachment entry from the registration and revenue records. However, they were informed that such removal could be effected only pursuant to an order passed by a competent court.

3. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the lst and 2nd respondents, to efface and remove the entry of attachment made pursuant to Exhibit P1 Order in the registration and revenue records relating to the petitioner's property comprised in Survey Nos. 43/8A1, 43/8A2 of Pallippuram Village, Alappuzha District, within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar Office, Panavally.

4. 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 work