The arbitral tribunal cannot enforce property attachment orders directly; such enforcement must go through a civil court.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of

1.49 Ares of land comprised in Re.Survey No. 129/ 17-2 of Aluva East Village, Ernakulam District, within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar OfÏce, Aluva. The petitioner had availed a personal loan of 40,000/- from the 3^rd respondent company, which is engaged in the business of granting loans on hypothecation and guarantee basis. Due to financial constraints, certain instalments fell into default, whereupon arbitration proceedings were initiated against her. The dispute was referred to a Sole Arbitrator, in Arb. Ref. No. 648 of 2024. . In an interim application filed by the 3rd respondent, the learned Arbitrator passed Ext.P1 order dated 27.07.2024 permitting conditional attachment of the petitioner's property. Aggrieved by the same, present 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 to the 1st 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 Re.Survey No. 129/17-2 of Aluva East Village, Ernakulam District, within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar OfÏce,Aluva (ii). Issue any such other Order or Direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii). To dispense with the filing of the Translation of the vernacular documents”.

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 OfÏcer. That direction will have to be nullified. Accordingly, we nullify the direction. The Sub Registrar or any revenue ofÏcials 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 ofÏcials shal