An attachment order issued without notice lacks authority and can be nullified upon proper judicial scrutiny.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2026)

The petitioner had applied for a loan of Rs.6 lakhs from the Cheranelloor Co-operative Society Bank by hypothecating her property for the medical treatment of her husband, but during the processing it came to her knowledge that the said property had already been attached pursuant to an interim order passed in I.A. No.3/2021 in Arb. Ref. No.3/2021. It is contended that the interim order was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording her an opportunity of being heard, on the basis of suppressed and misleading facts. No summons were issued either to the petitioner or to the 4^th respondent, and the petitioner had no prior knowledge of the arbitration proceedings. The petitioner submits that her loan application is still pending before the Co-operative Society and seeks the urgent lifting of the attachment to enable alienation of her sole property for meeting her emergent needs.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3^rd respondent to lift the attachment, considering Ext.P3 surrendering letter.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to initiate steps to lift the attachment of the petitioner's property.

iii) Issue such other writ, direction or order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) The petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.”

3. 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 ord